The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Draft Budget 2002-03

Sir John Gorman: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the draft Budget for the year 2002-03.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is customary for a copy of a Minister’s statement to be available to Members on arrival at the Chamber. Unfortunately, Mr Durkan’s statement has not been made available to Members at this point —

Ms Patricia Lewsley: It is available outside the Chamber.

Mr Danny Kennedy: It arrived at a very late stage. The statement has not been made available to some Members in the Chamber, and I ask that the matter be taken up with the Business Office to ensure that this does not happen again.

Mr John Tierney: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The normal procedure is for the statement to be left at the Door for Members, which is exactly what happened today.

Mr Mark Durkan: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Executive’s public spending plans for 2002-03. I understand that the statement has been put in Members’ pigeonholes and that it is available outside the Chamber. I do not know exactly when it was left outside, but I shall follow up the matter given the understandable concern that has been expressed.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement, the Executive agreed a draft Programme for Government, which incorporated an agreed Budget at its meeting on 20 September. In line with section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I today lay the Budget before the Assembly for scrutiny and approval, after examination and debate in Committee and in the Chamber.
I wish to emphasise that the proposals that I announce today are made on behalf of the Executive as a whole. Following intense and serious discussions we have drawn together spending plans for all our services. Each Minister who attended the Executive has participated in thoughtful and constructive discussion on the public services that we oversee.
We are aware of the pressures that affect all Departments. We have a shared responsibility for the judgements that we have formed on the balance between competing demands and priorities. Therefore we must share the credit, and be prepared to share the criticism, from the implications of our plans.
All Ministers must deal with their own issues. They work within plans set by the Executive, and they should receive our support as they uphold and implement what we have agreed. I am grateful for assurances from those Ministers who have engaged in the discussions that they will uphold the conclusions reached. The clarity of the agreement that we have reached shows what can be achieved in our unique form of multiparty Administration.
I have also had useful bilateral talks with the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Social Development, who have both indicated their support for some of the proposals I present today.
My main purpose is to begin the important stage of consultation on the spending plans for next year. In response to the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report from last December, the Executive have fulfilled their commitment to bring forward Budget proposals immediately after the summer recess. That is in order to maximise the opportunity for the Assembly to fulfil its scrutiny role, as envisaged in the Belfast Agreement and in section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
When I presented the position report to the Assembly on 19 June 2001 on behalf of the Executive, I made it clear that the report was evidence of the Executive’s commitment to engage in meaningful consultation and to provide an opportunity for debate and comment in the Assembly and more widely on the issues. Many have availed themselves of the opportunity, and I am grateful to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for the attention they have paid to this issue. The Committee’s commentary on the position report has been helpful, and there has been extensive commentary from other Committees. Beyond the Assembly, we have received many important comments from social partner organisations and from other interested parties. I am grateful for the thoughtful input that they have provided.
The spending plans that I shall outline have been designed to deliver the priorities and actions in the revised Programme for Government, which was presented to the Assembly yesterday by Sir Reg Empey and Séamus Mallon. The Programme for Government has set the context for our budgetary decisions. The draft Budget’s development has been influenced by the Executive’s proposals on our policy priorities and programmes that are set out in the draft Programme for Government. This year we have further strengthened the link between policy making and financial planning, which ensures that our policies drive our expenditure and not vice versa.
We have been able to confirm and refine our actions and targets, as explained in the statement on the Programme for Government. In a few cases, due to prevailing constraints and other pressures, it has been necessary to defer planned actions. The Executive have agreed that if the resource position improves, first consideration will be given to fulfilling Programme for Government commitments that have been deferred.
The draft Budget covers the second year of the period covered by the 2000 spending review. From the longer- term perspective, since the comprehensive spending review in 1998 there has been a period of rapid growth in public spending. Our departmental expenditure limit allocation, as set by the Treasury, shows a rise in public expenditure in 2002-03 of 5·8%, or around 3% more than general inflation. However, I recognise that many of the costs that affect public services are rising at a faster rate than general inflation. The allocations for 2002-03 build on the 5·5% real terms increase in 2001-02, which has allowed Departments to initiate the work started on the Programme for Government priorities.
It is important to stress that we cannot expect spending to continue to rise at such a substantial rate for much longer. Objectively and against the historic trend, the public spending context, at least in the context of the Barnett formula, is now "as good as it gets".
Given the problems faced by many public services, we can conclude that the rapid growth is necessary but that it falls short in that it does not match expectations for the delivery of services. That applies, in particular, to health spending, in regard to which it is increasingly clear that even the high rates of increase applied in England, which we cannot afford to match, leave serious needs unmet. As a result of the demand for public services, substantial bids have been made by Departments. Those needs are real and they need to be addressed.
The Barnett formula dominates the overall arrangements for determining public spending levels for our services. As there was no spending review in Whitehall this year, there are no new Barnett consequentials for 2002-03, other than the small amounts added in the Chancellor’s Budget in March. The Barnett formula results in less growth of our spending power than England’s, and that is apparent in issues that we have had to address in preparing the draft Budget.
The Executive remain determined to seek improvements to our position with regard to the Barnett formula. We need to seek change to help us seize the unique opportunities provided by devolution and the Good Friday Agreement. We must also address the backlog of underinvestment in infrastructure and the difficulties in funding for health, education, transport and other services that we have inherited; equivalent services in England are now being addressed with large amounts of money.
However, we must not overlook the most obvious point: the amount spent per person in Northern Ireland is much higher than in England. We need to recognise that the Treasury will point out areas in which our spending is high and that it will argue that we must reprioritise. I feel strongly that we must reprioritise in response to our own views and values, not in response to Treasury constraints. That is what the Programme for Government and the Budget are all about. However, we must be aware of the areas in which relatively high spending weakens our case for help with our most acute difficulties.
Proportionately, we raise much less revenue than in England, and we fund water and sewerage services from our departmental expenditure limit. The Assembly should note that if we were to raise rate revenue and water charges roughly to their equivalent pattern in England, we would have approximately £300 million of additional spending power for public services. Even if we make allowance for the greater level of social deprivation in Northern Ireland, our low rate revenue still makes it difficult to argue for additional money from the Treasury.
In last year’s spending review we set indicative figures for 2002-03 and 2003-04 that showed how the money might be allocated to services, subject to review this year. That accounted for all our spending power, except for the Executive programme funds.
In approaching the Budget, the Executive could simply have confirmed the indicative allocations set last year. We could have allocated the additional £19·3 million available from the Chancellor’s March Budget, and the £23·5 million available as a result of reduced requirements of Departments, which was derived mainly from additional receipts and further expected proceeds from the sale of Housing Executive property. That would have meant that the majority of the bids lodged by Departments, and summarised in the position report, would have been ruled out. Departments would have had to readjust priorities to cover new costs and forgo the developments implied by their other bids.
However, we have looked at the more general needs and demands that services face and at the scope for better use of the available spending power. We looked seriously at the option of some redistribution within the indicative figures that had been set last year. Although, in the final package of proposals, only one Department receives less than the previous indicative allocations, we did consider the possibility of wider reallocations.
We also took careful note of the points that have been made about the levels of reallocation that have applied in all our monitoring rounds so far, and the high levels of end of year flexibility. We are aware that if the balance of loading between programmes is not right at the start of the year, that will exacerbate the problem of underspending. Moreover, it is more difficult to explain the need to raise money from the rates if that money is not being fully drawn down by our programmes. It would seem odd for the scope and extent of our changes in a full Budget round to be on a smaller scale than most monitoring rounds.
In considering those issues, we came to the view that health, education and roads were among the services that face the most acute difficulties, and they would have to be given a degree of priority. That does not give those functions pre-eminence in the Programme for Government, but simply recognises that, in the context of the draft Budget, they presented the most clear-cut cases for some increase in the indicative figures that we had determined last year. The key difficulty was to find ways to address those priorities without simply shifting the difficulty to another sector.
We cannot allocate resources beyond our departmental expenditure limit, but we can look at the prospects for future room to manoeuvre. We have concluded that we can, without undue risk, allocate around £48 million of spending power to be carried forward into 2002-03, based on anticipated underspending this year. We are confident that it will be possible to manage resources in the next few monitoring rounds and through 2002-03, and to make good that assumption.
As a last resort, we have agreed that if the pattern changes and we have insufficient underspend to confirm the assumptions that we make today, we could draw on the provision held in the Executive programme funds. That means that we have a firm basis for additional allocations now, because the Executive programme funds provide security against the risks that affect our decisions.
However, neither the infrastructure fund nor the children’s fund will be included in that arrangement. We want to give particular priority to addressing the region’s strategic infrastructure, and it is important that we have the Executive programme funds available to fund more long-term developments, such as those announced last Friday and yesterday. We also want to protect the children’s fund because, as well as being intrinsically important, it is about to be the subject of a major consultation.
To use the £48 million in that way is not a cost-free option; it puts some limits on our scope to meet the pressures that may arise this year. However, I am confident that we have acted to manage resources as effectively as possible at the draft Budget stage by reducing the extent of reallocation necessary in monitoring rounds.
To use the £48 million and the additional money from the March Budget, and by recycling the reduced requirements from Departments, the total available for allocation is £92·6 million. That also includes a small reduction — £1·8 million — from the indicative allocation for the Department for Social Development. Of that, £13 million is required to deal with our proposed approach to the regional rate for 2002-03.
Therefore, the approach that I have described allowed us to meet a total of £79·6 million of the spending pressures in 2002-03 over and above the indicative figures. That is a much better scenario than had seemed likely in June, when the position report was published. However, all Departments will still have to act to absorb substantial additional costs that cannot be covered by additional spending power. That is not surprising or exceptional, but the norm for the management of public spending.
In reaching our decisions, the Executive examined a number of possible means to secure additional spending power. We focused on the need to control the level of spending on departmental running costs. All Departments will be required to examine how they can reprioritise to ensure that spending is focused where it is most needed — on public services.
We need to recognise that spending on departmental running costs includes some services provided directly by Departments. Therefore, an across-the-board cut in departmental running costs would be unhelpful. We also need to ensure that Departments can address the Assembly’s needs, give proper account to its Committees and meet their obligations under the agreement. The Executive will consider the issue further before the revised Budget is prepared.
We shall also continue to examine the scope for additional asset sales or other measures that would allow us to release more resources for services. We shall seek further information from Departments on that, and it would be helpful if all Committees would include examination of the issue in their discussions with Departments.
The draft Budget is not so much about increases to plans, but about how best to use the resources available. It is not about ordering up more, but about getting our priorities in order. That applies to the full range of services and also to each Department’s programme. We should not focus on bids for more, but on how we can get more from what we have. There are no free choices, but we can make real choices based on the values and principles that we wish to uphold. Making a difference does not depend only on having more money to spend. We can and should break further away from the patterns that we have inherited.
We have to be prepared for some allocations to go down as well as up. To get the most from public spending will mean that there is more to the process than sharing out additional money. We must focus more on what is being achieved and delivered. As we develop the public service agreements, as published in the draft Programme for Government yesterday, the outputs and outcomes can and must come to mean more to us than the amounts of money or the percentage increases in spending on programmes. That was what we wanted to achieve in the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, and we need to ask Departments to engage in that with increasing realism.
I urge all the Committees to focus their attention not so much on what may have happened to bids that Departments lodged, but on what will be achieved through the Departments’ programmes. We need to work on the money that is there — as in the Executive’s proposals — and not on the money that we cannot allocate. It may be helpful in some cases for Committees to follow through with scrutiny of areas that have been questioned in the Public Accounts Committee’s hearings and reports, so that the spending plans can benefit from the detailed work already completed by that Committee.
In making choices, we need to focus spending on where the best advantage can be gained, or on where the needs are most acute. That means facing up to the fact that some spending is less essential and less beneficial. Benefits and effects can be indirect and long term, and, at times, we need to insist on resources being secured for long-term investment, even at the cost of short-term convenience.
We must focus on the evidence and make better informed decisions on the allocations for each Department for the benefit of the community and without regard for the party identity of the Minister concerned. It is important that that is seen by all as the dominant issue for consideration by the Assembly. Prioritisation will be the theme of the work that needs to be done between now and December.
In finalising the draft Budget proposals, the Executive have considered the views expressed by the Assembly on a range of issues. The Executive propose that the additional resources available should be used as explained in the Budget document and in the table attached to my statement. To outline the picture of the Executive’s Budget proposals, I will comment on the position for each Department in turn and set out briefly the changes to the indicative allocations that the Executive agreed last December.
The Executive programme funds are a key element of the Executive’s determination to ensure that spending plans are adjusted from previous patterns and spent in line with the Executive’s strategic priorities as is set out in the Programme for Government. They are also designed to promote cross-cutting working, in which proposals and initiatives can be proposed for consideration by an appropriate group of Ministers working together.
We believe that the special allocations from the funds managed and approved at Executive level will make a real difference from previous patterns of expenditure. Because some spending power has been placed in those new funds, it follows that the amounts shown for Departments in the draft Budget will understate the final spending power that will be available to functions in due course. I ask the Committees to bear that in mind when considering the proposals.
Negotiations on the new round of structural funds have now been completed for the Peace II and building sustainable prosperity programmes, and for the equal community initiative. The negotiations for the remaining community initiatives — INTERREG., URBAN and LEADER — are nearing completion. The detailed arrangements required under the programmes are nearly ready, and it is expected that bids for funding will be invited across the range of measures in the near future.
The allocations to functions and Departments in the Budget reflect the Departments’ responsibilities as implementing and accountable bodies for measures within the various structural funds operational programmes. The figures in the summary and the departmental tables illustrate the scope of the new programmes and how they complement the Executive’s own programmes. That helps to highlight the special contribution made to the region by European programmes, especially the unique assistance from the EU programme for peace and reconciliation. It is proposed that the new Executive programme fund for social inclusion and community regeneration will be managed alongside elements of the structural funds, and the community initiatives in particular, to maximise co-operation between the Executive, district councils and the European Union.
I will now turn to the main features of the departmental allocations. The allocation proposed for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is some £204 million. Following the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, the Executive wish to see how best to secure the future of the rural economy and the communities that depend on it. In particular, we will, over the coming months, examine the conclusions of the rural visioning exercise.
The allocation for 2002-03 includes an additional £2·2 million for a greatly enhanced programme of BSE testing of animals to meet EU requirements. That is in line with the Executive’s priority to attain a low BSE incidence status so that our farmers can regain access to export markets.
Further provision has been made available to take forward the scrapie eradication programme, and provision for animal disease compensation is being aligned more accurately with need. Funding has been made available to maintain the beef quality initiative and take forward the Agenda 2000 reforms and the cod recovery plan. The Budget also provides for an increase of £300,000 in support of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission — one of the North/South implementation bodies.
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure faces some cost pressures in respect of museums and in completing the establishment of the Department with its particular and distinctive role. The proposals include a significant boost in expenditure compared to 2001-02, especially for museums and libraries. The plans also provide appropriate provision for the operational costs of the languages body and Waterways Ireland. The proposed allocations will also cover the cost of the staffing necessary to allow the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to meet its wide-ranging portfolio of responsibilities.
The Budget proposals for the Department of Education support the Executive’s priority of investing in education and skills. Planned allocations will promote a substantial programme of support for the school sector, the youth service and community relations activities. That represents a significant improvement on the indicative plans announced last December, although the proposals will still call for a careful prioritisation of activities in the education programme.
The Budget plans will enable the Department to continue the drive to improve standards and promote excellence across the whole of the school sector, to achieve targets on GCSE and A level attainment levels and literacy and numeracy levels, and to reduce the number of pupils identified as poor attendees. The resources provided will protect classroom provision and initiatives that are key to assisting vulnerable groups.
Resources are included for ongoing initiatives to improve schools that are underperforming and to provide all schools with information and communication facilities that will increase access to new learning opportunities and learning materials.
The Budget proposals for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment represent a slight decrease in spending compared with this year. The amounts required for support to industry and enterprise are difficult to predict at the budgetary planning stage, and those allocated for 2002-03 reflect the recent trend while taking account of evolving policies in lower grant rates and alternative types of support. The Executive remain sensitive to the possible need for significant investment, should some particular need or opportunity arise.
It is not yet clear what effect the expected economic slowdown will have, and it is intended that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will keep the matter under review and report at the earliest opportunity should changing circumstances reduce the budget needed in 2002-03. In setting this allocation, the Executive remain confident that the Department will still be able to meet its main Programme for Government priorities and public service agreement targets.
It is also important to note that the Budget provision does not take into account possible major infrastructure projects such as the recently announced natural gas pipelines and the provision of broadband telecommunications in Northern Ireland. Those will fall to be considered for support from the Executive programme funds. It is expected that the grant for the gas pipelines will come mainly from the Budgets for 2003-04 to 2005-06, so it is not a matter for the Budget for 2002-03.
The budget for the Department of Finance and Personnel will support the Executive’s drive to provide modern and efficient public services. The resources provided will enable the Department to provide advice and assistance to the Executive and the Assembly, helping them to manage the public expenditure system and decide how to allocate scarce resources adequately to finance Northern Ireland’s public services. The Department will also provide a range of central services to other Departments and complete major reviews of rating policy; public procurement policies; the arrangements for promotion and recruitment to the Senior Civil Service; accommodation policy; and the scope for the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs.
The Department for Employment and Learning’s allocation will enable the planned expansion of student support schemes to continue and allow the delivery of other higher and further education services to be maintained at current levels. Changing needs and patterns of demand have led to a planned reduction in employment programmes, but levels of service to individuals will be secured. The additions made will support the Programme for Government priority of investing in education and skills and its supporting actions to broaden access to higher and further education and employment opportunities. An extra £30·4 million is included in the Budget plans to provide for the expansion of further and higher education places, and to broaden access to these places through revised student support measures, which target those on low incomes and those who need additional support because of their age or need for childcare support. The Department will also seek to raise attainment levels.
The employment programme will continue to provide a full range of services to companies and individuals to promote economic growth and help increase the number of accessible employment opportunities. Helping people to move from welfare to work; encouraging lifelong learning through individual learning accounts and other measures; and improving attainment levels within the Jobskills programme will all remain priorities.
The largest programme within our departmental expenditure limit is the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The proposals make provision for an increase of 8·1% in 2001-02. This reflects the Executive’s commitment to developing the service to meet the needs of our population, although this includes a technical change of £19 million from the social security budget, so the effective increase is 7·3%.
In our discussions in the Executive there was recognition of the significant demands on the Health Service. The Health Service needs increases of 7% or 8% simply to maintain standards of care due to the cost structure of the service. Such increases are afforded in England, yet no one would say that their provision is adequate for the needs of the community. However, there is increasing evidence that provision here is falling behind that available in England.
We should not allow the complexity and range of issues that we face in the Budget to obscure the central fact that we have to find ways to provide adequately for the Health Service. This is probably the largest Budget issue that we face now and in the coming spending review. Change and hard choices lie ahead to make sure that the service’s structure, organisation and management serve the public interest.
I was struck by the consensus that it is right that we should increase the relative amount we spend on health and provide substantial resources in the Budget now. Our plans will enable the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to maintain the existing level of services; respond to the increasing demands of an ageing population; and address the rising costs of modern medicine. However, it must be understood that we do not have all we need to allow the Department to implement all of its planned service developments. It is impossible to find sufficient additional resources to cover all of the Department’s pay and price pressures.
The Executive were advised that a consequence of the proposed allocation for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety would be the deferral of the introduction of free nursing care for the elderly. It would also be necessary to re-deploy the savings in fundholding administration, which we had planned would support the management costs of the proposed local health and social care groups and other Programme for Government commitments. The Executive found that it was not possible to provide adequately for other services, set an appropriate rate of increase and avoid these deferrals. This shows clearly the nature of the difficult decisions that faced the Executive.
On a more positive note, the spending plans will allow continued support for smaller hospitals and cover the cost of the temporary transfer of services to other hospitals pending the outcome of the Hayes review. Provision is also included for the continuation of essential service commitments to address winter pressures and waiting lists.
Planned allocations will maintain the improvements in personal social services, including community care, children’s services, Sure Start and residential childcare places. Provision will also be available to address care for people with severe mental illnesses and learning disabilities.
I again emphasise that many aspects of health programmes will be eligible to be financed under the Executive programme funds, and thus there is scope for these allocations to be increased.
Planned expenditure by the Department of the Environment will enable the Department to continue its programme of work on waste management and the control of pollution to help ensure that Northern Ireland meets the EU Directives on waste management for which extra provision was made in the 2000 Budget. Additional funds are being made available in this Budget to help advance work in this area and in transport regulation where the Department has also to ensure compliance with EU regulations. Additional provision was also made in 2001-02 for road safety in response to the alarming accident levels on our roads. The Budget maintains an enhanced level of investment in that area to enable this important work to continue.
The 2000 Budget provided an increase of around 25% for planning services in 2001-02 to help meet growth in demand; this enhanced level of service will continue to be supported in 2002-03. Provision has also been made for local government services to fully meet the costs of the de-rating policy to district councils and to provide for resource grants to less-well-off councils, though it has not been possible to increase this in line with inflation this year.
The spending plans for the Department for Regional Development will sustain the investment programme for public transport, which shows a 36% increase over 2001-02, reflecting the major investment needed following the decisions on rail safety last year. This reflects the Executive’s commitment to improve and modernise Northern Ireland’s infrastructure. The plans also include provision for free travel for the elderly, following on from the allocations made for 2001-02 in February.
Key to this is the need to invest in structural maintenance of our road network, which is a vital asset that has suffered from a lack of investment in the past. The Executive have agreed that this deterioration must be arrested and have made provision to help maintain current levels of investment. We will also continue to press the Chancellor to exempt Northern Ireland from the aggregates tax, because that will increase the negative environmental impact of quarrying and put a large number of jobs at risk in that sector of our economy.
The Department for Regional Development will continue to invest in the development of the water and sewerage infrastructure to ensure that European quality standards on drinking water and waste water discharges can be met. The 2001 Budget confirms continued capital funding for 2002-03 at the enhanced level that has been built up over the past few years.
The allocation made to the Department for Social Development will cover the administration of social security benefits, child support, housing, urban regeneration and community development. Those resources will enable the Department’s Social Security Agency to provide services to high standards of accuracy and to implement the welfare reform and modernisation programme in line with its public service agreement (PSA) targets.
After a successful pilot, and in conjunction with the Department for Employment and Learning, a single service will be rolled out, and a new joint jobseeker’s allowance process will be introduced. Customer satisfaction levels will be maintained, and measures to reduce fraud will continue. The resources will also allow the continuation of a substantial programme to promote measurable improvements to housing. Specific actions will be taken to reduce fuel poverty; to ensure that the Northern Ireland housing stock is maintained to the recommended standards of fitness and to build new homes that are accessible to people on low incomes.
An active programme of urban regeneration and community development will continue. A new neighbourhood renewal strategy will be developed, and community support plans for all district council areas will be introduced.
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will receive a modest increase in provision, which will be used to fund key research on equality and policy effectiveness and the expansion of several existing programmes. The plans will enable the Office to continue to provide effective support to the Executive and to develop and implement actions relating to anti- discrimination law, improving community relations, a children’s strategy and the effective implementation of New Targeting Social Need (TSN) policy. Representative offices will be maintained in Brussels and Washington.
Finally, the Budget proposals also include appropriate provision for the Assembly, enabling the development of the services planned by the Assembly Commission and building on the good work that has already started. Provision for the smaller Departments will cover the administrative costs of the independent Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG).
Those are the main features of the spending proposals. The plans are also supported not only by the Treasury allocation for Northern Ireland but revenue from the regional rate. That revenue represents only about 6% of our spending power. I doubt whether it will be dealt with in 6% of the time that we spend on considering the Budget. I ask all Members to keep the issue in perspective.
The Finance and Personnel Committee concluded in its report that any increase in the regional rate for 2002-03 should be linked to the rate of inflation. If we had taken that approach we would have had to use all the additional money that we received in the March Budget. We received that money as a result of a boost to the health and education budgets. It would be difficult to explain to the Treasury and, more importantly, to patients and pupils that we had diverted our share of that money to ease the position on rates.
The Executive have decided to repeat the increases of 7% in the domestic regional rate and 3·3% in the non-domestic regional rate, which they agreed and which were endorsed by the Assembly for this year. Our plans are based firmly on the conclusion that the increases will be necessary to sustain the spending levels on public services that I propose today and to show that we are looking to ratepayers to contribute a share to the growing costs of public services. Given that the standard rate of inflation is insufficient to meet the cost of services, it is impossible to make it the going rate for revenue. Although the cost of services will rise by 7% — and our total departmental expenditure limit will rise by 5·8% — under these proposals, the total income from rates will increase by only 4·8%.
That reflects the need to hold the business rate as close as possible to the rate of inflation, as it is not out of line with the position in England. The combined effect of the lower increases agreed last February for 2001-02 and these proposals is that we will forgo £13 million of revenue.
It is estimated that the proposed rates increase will cost the average ratepayer about 29p a week. People in comparable circumstances elsewhere pay several pounds a week more than ratepayers here. Rate revenue is also substantially supplemented from housing benefit, which comes from annually managed expenditure outside the departmental expenditure limit. That not only ensures that the rates do not lead to hardship for those most in need, but also means additional income for the regional economy. Lower rates would mean that we would get less from the Treasury.
The Executive have agreed that it would be inappropriate to make major changes on the rating issue before the review of rating policy is completed. A consultation paper is being prepared that will provide fuller analysis of how our position compares with other regions and the options for change. A serious debate on those issues is needed. It should take place as soon as possible, outside the immediate Budget context, and inform our future plans alongside the spending review next year.
Last year, I said that agreement on the Programme for Government and the Budget represented a very important step in the evolution of the new institutions. That is no less true now. This draft Budget marks a further step in breaking away from pre-devolution patterns and priorities. I hope that it will prepare the way for a much more fundamental review of priorities in the forthcoming spending review next year. Indeed, it is a sign of our growing economic maturity that we have been able to work together as an Executive in a tighter financial context, while having full regard for the broad range of responsibilities of all Departments and the services that are provided for all people in the community.
In its report on the Budget last year, the Committee for Finance and Personnel urged that in future the presentation of the draft Budget should take place as soon after the summer recess as possible. I agreed that that would be the best way to ensure that the Assembly and Committees have as much time as possible to scrutinise the Budget. I am pleased that at least an extra two weeks have been secured for Assembly scrutiny, in addition to the consultation that has already taken place on the position report.
I therefore look forward to the Assembly’s scrutiny, in Committees, of our spending plans and proposals as set out in the draft Budget, and particularly the role of the Committee for Finance and Personnel in drawing together and facilitating the consultation. As Sir Reg Empey and Séamus Mallon said yesterday, this process will also include opportunities for debate in the Chamber on the Programme for Government and the Budget. Those are likely to take place in October or November.
Today’s statement is also the start of a wider consultation process. The draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget will be widely circulated among our social partners in business, trade unions and the voluntary and community sectors and will also be made available to other interested individuals and groups. I commend the Budget proposals to the Assembly and invite all Members to consider them carefully. I look forward to working with the Assembly to complete the process of settling next year’s spending plans in December. We will then increasingly see that we can make a difference for the better and deliver the benefits of devolution.

Sir John Gorman: There is one hour for questions. I remind Members that this is not a time for discussion of the content of any particular part of the Budget. It is a time for questions.

Mr James Leslie: I welcome the Minister’s very detailed Budget statement and, in particular, his action to address the Committee’s concerns last year on the timing of the scrutiny process. The extra time available can be well used.
In the allocations, the Minister referred twice to the Executive programme funds. I was somewhat concerned that he was, in effect, treating those as a provision against uncertainty rather than as ring-fenced items in their own right.
I also note that in his later remarks on the Executive programme funds he referred to the importance of cross-cutting. However, cross-cutting was not particularly apparent in the allocations that he announced. Can the Minister therefore comment on the extent to which the Executive programme funds will be ring-fenced and on the strictness of the cross-cutting criteria that he intends to apply?

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Deputy Speaker, you observed that this hour is for questions; unfortunately, it is also for answers.
The Budget has addressed departmental spending plans. The Executive programme funds are used more specifically to bring forward cross-cutting ideas and suggestions. Several Departments are leading cross- cutting initiatives such as the public health strategy, the task force on unemployability and work by the Department for Social Development. We should not therefore ignore the fact that some of the spending allocated to Departments will support cross-cutting activity. Obviously, other Departments should use their expenditure to support their own engagement and involvement in cross-cutting activities.
With regard to further evidence of the cross-cutting approach, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Executive have agreed the draft Budget. Ministers, who are conscious of their own pressures and the needs of those sectors which depend on their departmental budgets, have also been able to take account of the pressures and needs facing the broad range of Departments.
The supreme cross-cutting activity has been the ability to deliver the draft Budget. I could also make the observation that many of the exchanges in relation to it have been both cross and cutting, but we have still emerged with an agreed draft Budget.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the increases in the departmental budgets. Can the Minister confirm that the children’s fund will be protected? When will allocations be made from the fund?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am happy to confirm that the children’s fund and the infrastructure fund are not counted in the amounts of money that may be treated or regarded as security for the projected carry forward. That does not mean that those other Executive programme funds are jeopardised. We have a fair degree of confidence in our assumption that the money will become available in monitoring rounds. Indeed, some money has already been held over, as Members will know if they recall my statement in respect of the June monitoring round.
We felt that it was important to remove the children’s fund from any part of that equation because of its intrinsic value and because it will be the subject of a major consultation exercise on how best the community and voluntary sectors should access it. Next year we will have the feedback from the consultation exercise, and there will be no further tranche of allocations from the children’s fund until then.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Minister emphasised that the budget for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development would be boosted by almost £9 million by the EU peace and reconciliation programme. He is aware that an international conference on agriculture is taking place in Belfast. Last night, I spoke with Commissioner Byrne. He pointed out that there is additional money in European coffers that could be made available. However, that must be matched with money from the Treasury. The Minister is aware that the farming community wishes to see the creation of a retirement programme. According to the Commissioner, there is money available for that from Europe. Will the Minister start a study to see how much matching money could be obtained from Europe, if the other money were available? Every possible penny should be brought to Northern Ireland from Europe.

Mr Mark Durkan: Northern Ireland should optimise any possibility of public expenditure support. That is why we need to make the case for a stronger future allocation for Northern Ireland to the Treasury. I work on the premise that, if European money is available for us, we should pursue and explore that possibility.
We must remember that we cannot make our own bids to the EU for the funding; that can only happen in a UK context. That is not within my immediate remit, as is reflected in today’s Budget consideration about the departmental expenditure limit. The other money falls into annually-managed expenditure. However, as the Member raised the issue, I am sure that both my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will look at it to see if, based on the Commissioner’s insights, there are some possibilities that have not occurred to us. However, I do not believe that that is something that will be distinctively available to us as a region or something that will be directly amenable to intervention by my Department.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the draft Budget and the Minister’s statement. I commend the Minister and his Executive Colleagues for the strenuous efforts that they have made to square the circle of the lack of public finance and to meet the needs of our community. It is important to acknowledge that the Minister has focused attention on the serious pressures that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety faces. He also dealt significantly with the Barnett formula.
What proper and vigorous steps are the Executive taking to address the issue of the Barnett formula, given that we have all acknowledged that that formula has serious disadvantages for our community?

Mr Mark Durkan: I agree with the main thrust of the Member’s point and recognise the pressures that exist. Those pressures are not only on the Health Service’s budget, but they are particularly acute there. That is reflected in so many comments that are made in the Chamber and elsewhere.
The 2000 spending review highlighted the problems with the Barnett formula in funding the devolved territories.
Following the full introduction of resource accounting and budgeting during the 2002 spending review, the Executive will continue to seek changes to the Barnett formula. We shall also press for recognition of the level of need in Northern Ireland and the structural differences between the public sector here and that in Great Britain.
The problem that we face with the Barnett formula is not simply a matter of whether the formula used to allocate funding adequately reflects our need; it is also that, under resource accounting and budgeting, capital charges and depreciation costs will move from annually- managed expenditure into the departmental expenditure limit. We have a much broader capital asset base than England; under that system road services will be funded from within the departmental expenditure limit. That is not the case in England where many of the roads are the responsibility of local authorities.
Unlike what happens across the water, our capital charges and depreciation costs for water and sewerage assets will also be covered by our departmental expenditure limit. The difficulty that we already face is that the Barnett formula gives us nothing for water and sewerage — we must fund those from our departmental expenditure limit. That problem will be compounded, and several issues must be addressed. However, there are also many strong retorts and challenges for us to face. We will not get a free run at the rickety wheel when it comes to challenging the Barnett formula.

Mr Seamus Close: Does the Minister agree that, when saying that health must be our number one priority, we must show that that is true in both word and deed? Does he agree that words such as "scandalous", "unfair" and "insufficient" jump out at us after only a glance at newspapers of recent days? Cancer sufferers are let down by delays; there are delays in coronary care; and hospitals are short of 14 orthopaedic surgeons. Such shortages have been brought about by underfunding and must be corrected. Does the Minister agree that, instead of holding money in Executive programme funds to provide security against shortfalls, it should be used now to ensure that this nation is in a good state of health?

Mr Mark Durkan: I acknowledge the strength of the Member’s views. I fully concur with him about the pressures on the Health Service, and the Executive have recognised that. With regard to making changes to the indicative allocations that were made last year, we have rightly paid particular attention to health, schools and roads. I do not disguise the fact that we need to provide more funding for health services, but we can only do that by providing money that would otherwise go to other programmes. We can also raise additional revenue through the rates. Everyone must reflect on the genuine priority that we attach to such things when deciding what steps we are prepared to take to find the necessary money.
With regard to the Executive programme funds, we expect to be able to find money carried over from monitoring rounds this year to take into next year’s spending, and we will use some of that to fund health services above the indicative allocations. Money is not sitting idle. In the unlikely event of our not being able to achieve the predicted carry-over amounts, we shall use Executive programme funds to cover some of the existing pressures. We do not believe that that situation will arise, and so we will be in a position to proceed with allocations from the Executive programme funds between now and the revised Budget. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be in a strong position to bid effectively for those funds.
Departments will be bidding for Executive programme funds in order to achieve, among other things, service improvements and service developments, which possibly include some of the areas that the Member has mentioned.

Ms Jane Morrice: I welcome the draft Budget and particularly the increase in finance for health and education. I hope that the Minister will include ring-fenced funding for road safety in the larger amount available for roads.
I am disappointed that there has not been greater emphasis placed on community relations and, in particular, the need to combat sectarianism. Given the events that have taken place in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland, the Executive and the Minister should focus greater funding on combating sectarianism. What funding will be made available to deal with that matter?

Mr Mark Durkan: The expenditure for roads is included in the Department for Regional Development’s budget, and road safety expenditure is included in the Department of the Environment’s budget. That reflects a budgetary increase of 16·6% — the amount was increased last year and has been increased again this year. We all understand the reasons for that increase given the scale of loss of life on our roads, an issue that many Members raised.
Some of the funding for community relations activity falls within the budget of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and we want to maintain that level of funding. Some of the additional expenditure in the Department of Education will also fund work on community relations.
It is impossible to give every programme area the same high percentage increase. We have been able to — or have had to — give high increases to some areas due to compelling pressures or unavoidable liabilities. People must bear in mind that to make the difficult decisions about prioritisation we, as an Executive, are not reflecting only our natural preferences. We are reflecting what we believe to be the best decisions that can be made, based on matching our resources to our responsibilities.

Mr Jim Wilson: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Thankfully, it appears to contain less gobbledegook than many other statements on financial matters. I share his view that the serious staffing issues in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure must be addressed.
I am concerned about the Minister’s opinion on the question of infrastructure. Is he satisfied that the draft Budget makes appropriate provision to correct the wrongs of years of direct rule through investment in clean water provision and the effective treatment of waste water, so that Northern Ireland’s lakes, rivers and streams do not become part of the sewerage system?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for his compliment about the lack of gobbledegook in my statement — although I will probably now proceed to indulge in some.
As an Executive, we have realised — and it has been mentioned in the Chamber — that we have a huge infrastructure deficit in certain areas. We have tried to meet that deficit with last year’s and this year’s allocations to, for example, the Department for Regional Development. We have sustained the necessary and planned increases in respect of water services and water and sewage treatment.
There are many pressing issues in that area, just as there are in roads and in other areas that people might term "the soft infrastructure", with regard to key facilities in health and education. One reason why we have provided the infrastructure fund as part of the Executive programme funds was to allow us to bring more distinctive attention to bear in those areas. We need to ensure that we get the most out of the investment that we make. We need to ensure that we meet standards that our own people and those in the EU would expect. I reflected in my statement that those were relevant and pressing considerations in the decisions that we have made.
I would like to make the point that water and sewerage services must be funded out of the total block grant — out of our departmental expenditure. We receive nothing in the Barnett formula for water and sewerage, because they are not part of public expenditure across the water. In circumstances in which we receive no Barnett allocation, the fact that we have been able to maintain the increased spending reflects some credit on the Executive. However, that in turn adds to the pressure in other programme areas, and people should bear in mind that important point in relation to revenue-raising and rates.

Dr Joe Hendron: I congratulate the Minister on his statement. I apologise for missing the earlier part — I was opening a conference by Nexus on sexual child abuse. In that regard, I notice in the statement that the children’s fund is to be protected.
My question is along the same lines as Mr Close’s remarks. Although I appreciate that the Treasury allocation and the regional rate provide the funding, I want to talk about how that funding is used. I accept that all Ministers, including the Health Minister, have done their best to obtain the funding for their Departments. However, it is absolutely ridiculous that Northern Ireland, with a population the size of Greater Birmingham, has four health boards and 19 trusts. Year in and year out we complain about the shortage of funds, yet we do not look directly at those structures. I accept that the Executive intend to have a review of public administration, and that point has been made many times. I want to know whether Ministers, if they so wish — and not necessarily with the agreement of the rest of the Executive — can look at structures in their Department, just as Sir Reg Empey was able to merge LEDU and IDB. That is vitally important in the context of health.

Mr Mark Durkan: I had better acknowledge the Member’s question rather than thank him for it — a little outburst of honesty from the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
The Hayes report, although it concentrated particularly on acute hospital services, also made a number of observations and recommendations in respect of broader health services and management structures. The Minister has already indicated that the report will be subject to a fuller consultation and, in turn, subject to full consideration by the Executive. Some of the issues raised by the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety arise in that context. He rightly identifies that the Executive are to undertake a wider review of public administration. All Ministers are free and able to look at various arrangements in their Departments. However, it would not make sense, in the context of a broader review, for Ministers to go on radical solo runs and to alter the nature of structures in circumstances in which congruent changes do not happen elsewhere in public administration.
That is part of joined-up government, but the issues identified by the Committee Chairperson have been previously recognised by the Minister, and the Executive are aware of them.

Mr Nigel Dodds: There are fewer Members in the Chamber today than on this occasion last year. I hope that that will not be repeated at the SDLP conference, or the Minister will have to address a smaller audience than previous leaders.
Will the Minister tell us the increase, in figures and percentages, for the North/South implementation bodies and for the North/South Ministerial Council? That was the subject of some debate in last year’s Budget.
The announcement of the deferral of the introduction of free nursing care for the elderly will cause great disappointment, especially as that is to proceed in Scotland. Does the Minister acknowledge that the proposal received unanimous support in the House? It has been widely welcomed. Will the Minister undertake to review the subject?
There will also be disappointment about the decision to retain the above-inflation rate increase for domestic ratepayers, which is double the rate of inflation. Will the Minister also take the opportunity to look at that? I can almost anticipate his answer. We can go into more detail on those issues later, in Committee and elsewhere.
I ask the Minister to look at those issues, particularly free nursing care, which affects the elderly in our community across the board.

Mr Mark Durkan: Like other Members of the Executive, I fully appreciate the importance of achieving free nursing care. For that reason, we allocated £3 million in last year’s Budget to introduce it. However, it could not be introduced, for legislative and other reasons, so further commitments of approximately £6 million were made in the indicative allocations in next year’s Budget. That is the baseline. That money will not now be adequate to cover the cost of free nursing care because of changing patterns of demand and other pressures, but it has not been withdrawn from the Health Service budget.
Members may recall that the Executive have agreed that, should any further money become available to ease our planning position for next year, first consideration will be given to any Programme for Government commitments that have been deferred. Members’ comments about that particular commitment will be reflected and remembered by the Executive. Members are welcome to help to identify any other means to obtain additional resources.
The provisions to meet next year’s legal obligations regarding the North/South implementation bodies are as follows: Waterways Ireland will receive £3 million; the North/South Language Body will receive £3·6 million; the Food Safety Promotion Board will receive £1·5 million; the Trade and Business Development Body will receive £3 million; the Special EU Programmes Body will receive £800,000; and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission will receive £900,000.
The percentage increases are: 17% for Waterways Ireland; 6% for the North/South Language Body; 3·4% for the Trade and Business Development Body; 2·1% for the Food Safety Promotion Board; 47·5% for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission; and 31·6% for the Special EU Programmes Body.
That reflects the fact that some of the spending, particularly in relation to providing secretarial support for the new Northern Ireland Regional Partnership Board, falls fully to the northern Administration and is not shared.

Mr Fred Cobain: I want to ask the Minister for some clarification on a number of points. In yesterday’s debate on the draft Programme for Government, we were told that housing unfitness in Housing Executive houses would be reduced in the next two years and that all Housing Executive houses would be kept to a recommended standard. In the draft Budget, the finance directed to the Housing Executive is to be cut yet again. Will the Minister explain the relationship between the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget, and where the money is to be made available?
Funding for the urban regeneration and community development programmes has been cut again this year. With regard to the Executive programme funds, the social inclusion/community regeneration fund is £34 million, yet the Department for Social Development gets £400,000 out of £33·5 million. The Minister keeps emphasising that each of those budgets contains a percentage to target social need. Will he explain how we will achieve that on an ever-reducing Budget?

Mr Mark Durkan: I remind Members that the Department for Social Development is getting an increase of 8·6% in the draft Budget. That includes an increase of 3·2% in the total housing budget. The Budget provides around £290 million for housing support by the Department, excluding house sales; that is an increase of 7%. However, total expenditure on housing also depends on the level of rental income that the Housing Executive receives from its tenants.
Taking that and other factors into account, the actual amount available for housing is over £630 million, based on the present estimate for the level of rental income. That level of provision will enable the Department to continue its capital investment programme in new housing, to maintain and renovate existing properties and to ensure compliance with fitness standards.
Members may wish to go back and check the various bids that were made previously on the Executive programme funds. Those bids informed the allocations that have been made and that have been reflected here. Further allocations are to be made from the Executive programme funds for next year. I am aware, and I can anticipate, that there will be some strong bids from the Department for Social Development, possibly in conjunction with other Departments.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I want to take this opportunity to welcome the additional resources for our Department, particularly for the museum service. I welcome the fact that Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI) will now be able to proceed with some of the work that it must do.
The Committee will be concerned about the arts sector. We are all preparing for Belfast’s bid to be European City of Culture 2008. We shall be concerned that there is no additional identification for that area, particularly given some of the capital requests that are around.
On a more general issue, will the Minister confirm that the work of all the Departments to identify resources that can be redeployed against the priorities of the Programme for Government, and consequently against the real needs of the people, will continue?
12.00

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Chairman of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure for that. It should not be forgotten that arts fared well last year. There was an increase of £1·4 million in 2001-02 as compared with 2000-01. That has been carried forward to this year. It should also be remembered that the arts figures do not take account of possible assistance that I have every reason to believe the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will be seeking from the Executive programme funds for at least one of the matters that the Member raised.
The Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive will not stop Departments from trying to re- prioritise and examine whether or not their plans make the best use of the resources available. Any decisions taken must be consistent with the Executive’s overall strategy and the Programme for Government.
I hope that the fact that the Chairman of the Committee has raised this question means that it will be the focus of the Committee’s attention. That is important, because it is easy for all of us to focus on the bids that have not been met and chase after them when the money is not available to meet them. We need to make sure, not just that we know what has happened to bids, but that we know what is happening to planning.

Mr Edwin Poots: We heard yesterday about the Programme for Government and the review of public administration, and Dr Hendron has already raised that issue. Where is the finance for the review of public administration? I understand that it is going to take £2 million, but I do not see that in the Budget.
We were also told yesterday that we were to have a children’s commissioner in place by June. Leaving aside the funding for the children’s strategy, which is a separate issue, where is the finance for a children’s commissioner?
In the funding for victims, a bid for £500,000 was submitted and that was granted. A marker bid for a further £750,000 was lodged. How much additional funding has been included in the draft Budget, and how much will actually translate into practical support for the victims?
The Civic Forum seems to have done well out of this Budget: it is getting an increase of £200,000 over its current £300,000. That has been noted.

Mr Mark Durkan: Most of the issues that the Member asked about fall into the budget for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and that will see a modest increase.
The Executive are trying to address the needs of victims through a variety of methods. A consultation document on a victims strategy was published on 6 August. Further decisions and developments depend on the outcome of that. The Executive have contributed £1·67 million to the Peace II victims measures. That will address victims’ needs in a variety of ways. In addition, £500,000 from the social inclusion Executive programme fund will be available to the Victims Unit this year, and in each of the next two years. Ongoing discussions continue with the Northern Ireland Office, as overlapping and converging interests are involved.
The increase for the Civic Forum represents the additional provision required to meet the full-year costs of the forum operating with its own stand-alone secretariat. Additional resources have also been made available to the Strategic Issues Unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, which has responsibility for major strategic cross-cutting matters such as the review of public administration and freedom of information policy.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I congratulate the Minister and his team on the statement. Does the Minister agree that the process of prioritisation and re-prioritisation is a crucial part of being in Government? Will he confirm that his ministerial colleagues were involved in — and agreed to — the decisions to make available additional resources for health, education and the roads?

Mr Mark Durkan: We were able to achieve adjustments from the indicative allocations that were agreed last year, and the fact that, in making those adjustments, we focused our attention on health, schools and roads shows that ministerial colleagues recognise the importance of investing in those services and funding those programmes.
It must be said, however, that Ministers have pressures on their own budgets, and they are responsible for services that face many difficulties. In some cases, those pressures are felt by the community and by the customer; in other cases, they arise from pressing contractual obligations or from infraction of EU regulations. Despite those pressures, we were able to recognise general priorities.
We must continue to examine our priorities. We must ask whether we are getting as much as we can out of the money that we spend and whether we need to do more. That task is not just part of the job of Government; it is part of the scrutiny role performed by the Assembly and its Committees.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I thank the Minister for his Budget statement and note his reference to the need for Committees to prioritise.
As Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I trust that the Minister is aware of the need for an improvement in levels of literacy and numeracy. The poor levels of adult literacy and numeracy in Northern Ireland received considerable attention in yesterday’s statement on the Programme for Government and in questions to Ministers. The figures for the lowest category of literacy and numeracy in Northern Ireland are three times those for Sweden.

Sir John Gorman: Mr Carrick, we heard all of this yesterday. You must ask a question.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I will ask a question. Cross-departmental action is needed, along with sufficient funding, to implement the strategy devised by the Department for Employment and Learning. Some 250,000 people in Northern Ireland are performing at the lowest levels. What financial resources will the Minister direct towards improving that totally unacceptable situation? How much is available for potential Executive programme fund bids in the current year, next year and 2003-04? What are the criteria for assessing the bids, which will, no doubt, exceed the funds available?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for his questions, but I will not be able to answer them all. It is not that I do not have answers available, but I do not want to take up time that could be used for other questions.
Annual allocations have previously reflected the priorities needed in literacy and numeracy, as shown by the figures identified by Mr Carrick. The budget for the Department for Employment and Learning includes further funding for the further education sector, and it is in the further education provisions that the Department for Employment and Learning will be carrying forward its work in relation to literacy and numeracy. Obviously, the Member can continue to bring that matter forward.
The amounts of money for the Executive programme funds are as previously published. The Department of Finance and Personnel recognises that there is an outside chance that some of the money that we plan to allocate for next year might have to be absorbed to cover some of the projected carry-over. I do not believe that that will happen. The Department will make allocations in the Executive programme funds between now and the revised Budget, and it has not changed the figures for each year from those published previously.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s Budget statement and congratulate him on the emphasis he has put on priority assessment of the quantum spending of each Department. Given that the Barnett formula is a factor which limits resources for Northern Ireland, what other ways are being explored to find more funding — particularly for infrastructure investment?
Will it ever be possible for Members to see Treasury figures regarding fiscal revenue receipts from this region, so that the Assembly can have a fuller appraisal of Northern Ireland’s public finance position?

Mr Mark Durkan: I do not know if it will ever be possible for Members to see those Treasury figures.
We are determined to address the issue of the Barnett formula, and we do have to press for the changes necessary to secure a fair allocation of resources for services here. That must be based on an objective assessment of our needs. As Mr Byrne stated, we need to try to maximise the resources available from other sources. That must include adopting more effective procurement policies and levering in funds from the private sector through, for instance, public-private partnerships (PPP) where appropriate.
We also need to continue to find more efficient ways of working across Government, and there is a particular need to reduce the costs of administration. If we succeed in doing that, more money will be released for services and constructive investment.
We must also look at the arrangements for maximising return from our assets. That means ensuring the disposal of those that are no longer required, when that is possible. We must also take a strategic approach to addressing those issues through the Programme for Government. We need to ensure that our determination to find more money for services applies as much to the scrutiny and consideration of our spending plans as it does to the bids and submissions that we make to the Treasury.

Mr David Hilditch: When developing a Programme for Government and the Budget for 2002-03 the Executive listed "Growing as a Community" as one of their priorities. However, one section of the community — its senior citizens — continues to be the victim of cutbacks. Members have already heard Mr Dodds describe the health care situation. What resources could be made available to redress the voids created by the loss of community agencies, such as Y Services, which provided external and internal works at homes, and the virtual removal of the meals-on-wheels service in many constituencies? Will additional resources be made available to enhance the quality of life for senior citizens?

Mr Mark Durkan: Free nursing care is not something that was available and is now being cut; we were trying to provide it, and it was previously budgeted for. The amount previously budgeted for free nursing care has not been enough to enable us to provide it in next year’s Budget because of other pressures and other patterns of need. Those pressures and patterns of need also relate to the elderly population.
It is not a case of moving money out of elderly care and into another area. We are not moving money out of the health and social services baseline. The Budget contains improved provisions that will help older people. Free transport is provided for the elderly, and some of the spending on measures to counter fuel poverty will, in many cases, be going to the homes of older people and those whose homes are older and less fuel efficient.
In many cases the range of services falls to non- departmental public bodies such as health and social services trusts. Personal social services are seeing an uplift of 12·1% in the draft Budget proposals, and much of the rising demand and pressure in personal social services relates to the elderly population.

Rev William McCrea: The red warning light flashed yesterday when the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister made a 35-minute speech containing nothing about the Department of the Environment.
Is the Minister aware of a statement on the Budget issued today by Mr Foster? He points out that the Executive’s allocation cuts £2 million from the resources grant payable to those district councils with the weakest rate bases. The weakest councils will find in the resource grant that they have to carry out their work with £2 million removed from their budget. Can the Minister tell us how those weakest councils will make up the deficit?
Is this not a form of taxation on the weakest, through the back door? Mr Foster’s statement shows that the reason for this cut is to work towards compliance with EU legislation on waste management. The £2 million will be taken from the weakest in respect of waste management and will be given to the strongest. Where is the justice in that? How will the deficit be made up by those councils?

Mr Mark Durkan: I drew attention to this subject in the Budget statement, although I do not believe that the Member was present.
The Department of the Environment has an uplift of 8·1%, contrary to a suggestion implicit in the Member’s opening remarks. As far as local government services are concerned, the grant to councils is not something that we can increase with the rate of inflation. That is what the Environment Minister advised the Executive. The Minister has made a statement to that effect.
The Executive and I dealt with a range of bids and pressures from the Department of the Environment and other Departments. Provision is being made for a 1·2% increase in local government services, and it is recognised that that does not match inflation. There is an overall 8·1% increase in that Department’s budget. I look forward to reading the conclusions of the Committee for the Environment, in the light of earlier questions about Committees wishing to explore issues of re-prioritisation.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Dr Esmond Birnie: I beg to move
That this Assembly believes, in the context of the development of a Bill of Rights, that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has failed to discharge its remit, as given to it by the Belfast Agreement 1998, in its various contributions to the debate on developing human rights in Northern Ireland.
This motion questions whether the Commission has kept within its remit. It is not a motion about whether human rights are, to quote from the old book ‘1066 and All That’, "A Good Thing". Human rights are a good thing, but they require careful definition. The Belfast Agreement said that the Commission was to be
"invited to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland".
Note that the agreement said "advise and consult on the scope". It did not say "campaign and dictate".
The critical point in today’s debate is whether the Commission has kept within that remit, especially in the booklet ‘Making a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland’ published earlier this month. I believe that it has not. By definition, human rights apply to human beings, so it is not self-evident that a human being in Belfast should be afforded more or less protection than a counterpart in, say, Birmingham or Berlin. At the very least, the Commission needs to have done much more to establish its case. I will address three ways in which Northern Ireland’s "particular circumstances" might be argued to be relevant, and evaluate the Commission’s response.
First is the constitutional question. In other parts of western and eastern Europe there are also disputes about the national identity of various territorities. Significantly, the European-wide Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has enshrined the principle that national frontiers should stand, given consent and self-determination. Our Commission, the official human rights body, has pointedly, but unsurprisingly — given its own intellectual descent from the Committee on the Administration of Justice — declared neutrality on the constitutional position. Is it proper for an official human rights body to enshrine such neutrality? No.
Secondly, the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland should include the awful death toll consequent from terrorism over the past 32 years. In pro rata terms, it is equivalent to New York City suffering 20,000 fatalities, or three World Trade Centre atrocities. Using the "cost of the troubles" figures, of the 3,593 people who were killed between 1969 and February 1998, 56% died as a result of Republican group action, 27% at the hands of Loyalists and 382, or 11%, as a consequence of state action.
Undoubtedly, almost all the latter cases were legitimate self-defence. However, so far, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) has given privileged consideration to the perceived victims of state action as opposed to the greater numbers of victims of paramilitary abuse. Regrettably, they are again following the pattern set by the Committee for the Administration of Justice (CAJ). Persons with a CAJ background continue to have a disproportionate representation on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC).
On page 46 of the September 2001 document ‘Making a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland’ the commission argues that search-and-seizure operations should not be used in the future, as they allegedly have been in the past, to harass certain sections of the community. No proof beyond the anecdotal is provided for their assertion of guilt.
In chapter 18, on the enforcement of any bill of rights, it refers to "human rights violations" rather than to violations and abuses. This seems to imply a sole focus on perceived state-led violations of rights. To date, the commission has added little or nothing to the most basic of rights — the right to life. It has leaned too far towards protecting the rights of those terrorists who in the past — and in the present — have taken innocent life.
The third way in which the NIHRC claims to be reflecting particular circumstances is with respect to social and economic deprivation in Northern Ireland. Every Member of the Assembly should be concerned about such deprivation — low wages, unfit housing, sickness rates, lack of basic numeracy and literacy, et cetera. We should all strive for improvement, as was said in the Budget debate. However, Northern Ireland is no longer uniquely deprived. Other parts of the United Kingdom, for example Wales, share similar gross domestic product (GDP) per capita levels, wage rates and illiteracy rates. Yet no one has credibly suggested supplementary rights to the European Commission on Human Rights in those cases.
Whatever the noble intent of most socio-economic rights, their realisation is crucially dependent on increased economic resources or public spending. Therefore, they may not be justiciable. In other words, they cannot be created by waving the magic wand of a court decision. They need public spending resources, voted for politically, through the Assembly.
In short, the commission has acted outside its remit, as defined in the Belfast Agreement. In this, as in everything else, we are arguing for full implementation — no more, no less. The commission, unconvincingly, tries to use section 69(3)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to trump the agreement on page 14 of the September document. It interpreted its assigned task, to promote awareness of human rights, in the wider scope of promoting the human-rights culture. This matters because human rights can be a powerful ideology. It has almost become a secular religion, constituting as it does a novel, and sometimes disturbing, use of language and a way of prescribing how people should behave.
I will go through some of the commission’s detailed policy proposals in the lengthy September 2001 document. On page 21 it recommends proportional representation for Westminster elections. On page 22 it suggests removing the debarment of the mentally ill from election candidacy and the reduction of the voting age to 16 or 17.
Page 33 refers, incongruously, to a right to positive action. It is unclear whether that implies positive discrimination and, therefore, the absurd right to be discriminated against in certain circumstances. The commission has previously endorsed the fifty-fifty policing quota of the Patten report.
Pages 37 and 89 refer to "access to sexual reproductive healthcare". What does that mean in practice? Could it be a back door to introducing abortion on demand in Northern Ireland? Page 60 refers to equality for "long-term domestic partnerships" relative to traditional marriage. Page76 recommends that education be conditioned to inculcate support for the ideology of human rights. Presumably, the commission’s own interpretation of rights — and interpretations vary — would be the authorised version in schools.
That very extensive list — and much more can be found in the document — reminds me of Jeremy Bentham’s dismissal of the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen as "imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters". In short, there is an attempt to achieve massive social engineering to reconstruct the totality of Northern Ireland, as though it were a blank sheet and to forget about the wishes of the majority. What role in the process is left for the Assembly or for the sovereign Westminster Parliament? Not very much.
In Northern Ireland, certain interest groups have stirred up extraordinary expectations of the perceived improvements that could be delivered by a bill of rights, particularly with respect to the social and economic position. Those with such expectations are almost bound to be disappointed. That is politically worrying and indeed cruel. One indicator of the commission’s rather grand view of its remit — indeed, its global reach far beyond this Province — is the commentary last week by the chief commissioner of the NIHRC, who was quoted in the press on 20 September. He criticised the American President, no less, for his choice of language to describe the attacks on Manhattan and Washington.
Every Member should pause before endorsing the commission’s maximalist interpretation of human rights. A maximalist human rights culture is in danger of eclipsing this institution. Under direct rule, limited democratic accountability lasted for too long. The intervention of a massive bill of rights into all areas of policy-making would imply that judges would have decision-making powers that would otherwise rightly rest with this democratically accountable body.
In summary, we do not criticise human rights per se; rather, we criticise the way in which the commission has so far chosen to interpret them. Speaking in the House of Commons on the first day of the second world war, 3 September 1939, Winston Churchill said that that war was necessary in order to "establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual". Rights are worth protecting — a lesson that, in these weeks, is being learned once again on an international level.
The problem with the commission’s document, and, indeed, its record to date, is that it combines undue protection for those who are the ultimate enemies of liberty, with the pursuit of other rights that are both undefinable and undeliverable. I therefore urge support for the motion.

Mr Alex Attwood: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "Commission" and insert
"has been hindered in discharging its remit due to limits on its powers and resources but congratulates the Commission on its substantial contributions to the debate on and in developing human rights in Northern Ireland."
The proposer of the motion said that he was not criticising human rights per se. I welcome that, because the alternative would be grotesque. I cannot, however, welcome much else that he said.
Dr Birnie said that the bill of rights proposals do not refer to the right of self-determination or to the principle of consent. That is rightly so, because, as he knows, those issues are already exhaustively and extensively addressed in the Good Friday Agreement, in the amendments to the Irish Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, arising from the Good Friday Agreement and in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Legislative and statutory guarantees already recognise the Irish people’s right to self-determination and to the principle of consent. Given that there are constitutional guarantees in law and in practice, it would be highly improper if, in a bill of rights, we should then create a Constitution in regard to those issues.
I suggest that Dr Birnie’s wish to see those principles addressed reveals his lack of confidence in that for which the Irish people voted and which was endorsed by the British Parliament, the Irish Parliament and the Irish people in the referendum and in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. There is every reason to be confident in relation to the constitutional position of the North, and there is no further reason to put into a bill of rights that which is already secured and guaranteed elsewhere in the British and Irish states.
Dr Birnie quoted the Good Friday Agreement, which says that the bill of rights should
"reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland".
In that regard, he then criticised the fact that the bill of rights outlines proposals in respect of economic and social guarantees. Are we not saying that in Northern Ireland there are particular circumstances that extend to economic and social issues? Should people who suffer economic and social disadvantage — whatever their background — not have the protection of the law and the benefit of good practice when it comes to improving their conditions?
The proposed bill of rights says that, given that the communities of the North have a common need and a common agenda in regard to economic and social guarantees and protections, these should be protected and enhanced. Dr Birnie, however, says that there should not be recognition of the particular inequalities, needs, disadvantages and requirements of both our communities as regards economic and social welfare.
Rather than saying that the bill of rights proposals should not guarantee economic and social rights, I suggest that in a society which is emerging from conflict and based around difference in that conflict, we should actively seek opportunities to promote common agendas and common needs. The bill of rights enables that to be addressed.
Dr Birnie also said that the issue of victims was inadequately addressed and that the needs of the victims of non-state abuses have not been addressed in the various interventions of the Human Rights Commission since its formation three years ago.
That is an inaccurate representation of what the Human Rights Commission has done. Those who can use the Internet — that does not include me — should download the submissions and casework of the Human Rights Commission from the past three years. It runs to three pages and covers 80 or 90 separate activities. When that material is analysed, it shows that the proposer’s conclusion does not stand against the evidence. The evidence confirms that the Human Rights Commission has attempted to cover every aspect of life in Northern Ireland’s communities in an effort to address and identify human rights issues. The commission’s work is as exhaustive and expansive as its limited powers and resources allow.
I have no doubt that the proposer believes that, when it comes to interventions in court cases in Northern Ireland, there is a tendency for the Human Rights Commission not to address non-state abuses. There have been only 20 instances in three years in which the Human Rights Commission has sought to intervene, under its limited powers, in cases arising from killings and the use of violence in the North. In those instances, the cases tended to involve state killings rather than non-state killings, but the Human Rights Commission will also intervene in court cases relating to the activities of non-state organisations. The best evidence for that is that the commission intervened in the inquest into the deaths in Omagh. After the greatest atrocity committed against human life and standards in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, at the invitation of the Coroner for Greater Belfast, intervened on behalf of the families of the Omagh victims to assert their right to see the evidence that the RUC made available to the inquest. In that case, the Human Rights Commission intervened to ensure that the rights of the victims of a non-state organisation were protected and enhanced. There is no more eloquent and powerful evidence of the commission’s readiness to intervene — without fear or favour and regardless of whether someone has been the victim of state or non-state violence — on behalf of citizens in the North.
If the proposer of the motion wants to talk about the Human Rights Commission and the bill of rights and about how they protect the victims in Northern Ireland, he should consider that evidence and see that they are impartial.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The Member placed great emphasis on the Omagh case. Will he concede that the Human Rights Commission attempted to prevent the broadcasting of the BBC ‘Panorama’ programme, against the apparent wishes of the families of the victims of that atrocity?

Mr Alex Attwood: The point is that it is difficult to balance the rights of victims, the right to privacy, the right to information and all the other relevant rights. The intervention of a body such as the Human Rights Commission can be open to a certain interpretation by one side or the other.
The fact that the Human Rights Commission intervened to try to restrain what the BBC might publish, and to ensure that victims and their families had more information than they might otherwise have received, confirms its best intentions rather than the Member’s worst fears. By intervening in that way, the Human Rights Commission confirmed its good faith, good intentions, good standards and good values. Its intervention was not evidence of partiality and unfairness, as the Member concludes. Dr Birnie’s point confirms my point rather than disproving it.
I will deal with some issues that were not addressed by the proponent of the motion. Rather than damn the Human Rights Commission, I praise it and would try to enhance it. Rather than claim that the bill of rights does not meet the standards that Dr Birnie says would be appropriate, we must try to enable the commission to meet the standards that would enable it to provide all the citizens of the North with the fullest possible protection and enforcement of human rights.
It is a matter for regret that Dr Birnie did not take the opportunity to address issues identified by the Human Rights Commission in its response to the Secretary of State’s review of its powers and resources, which were authorised by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I would be more convinced by the proponent’s comments if he had dealt with the wider agenda of trying to strengthen the Human Rights Commission with the powers and resources needed to identify and address all human rights issues in the North. That is what we have tried to do in our amendment.
At the moment, according to the Human Rights Commission, it does not have the powers and resources that it needs to enable it to do all that it would like to do. Its restricted powers and limited budget have prevented the commission from carrying out the extensive consultation on the bill of rights that it wished to do. It was unable to organise event training in preparation for the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 in October 2000; nor was it able to create a presence outside Belfast. It was unable to employ as many staff as it needed to deal with research, investigations, legislation, policy and educational development.
The Human Rights Commission has a limited budget of £750,000, which is 10 times less than the Equality Commission’s funding, and the same amount that the RUC spends on 10 hours of activities in one year. Rather than condemn it for what it has produced, we should try to enhance it by giving it the powers and moneys that it requires. That is particularly relevant at the moment, because we are on the threshold of a new beginning for policing. The Patten Report said that human rights should be at the core of a new beginning for policing. The Human Rights Commission has a statutory function to ensure that human rights legislation is complied with and that that compliance is witnessed throughout Northern Ireland. If it is starved of its resources, it will be starved of the ability to give life to the new beginning for policing.
The Government might be about to announce the independent members of the Police Board. Is it not, therefore, appropriate to enable the policing board to carry out its functions and to give the Human Rights Commission the moneys needed to enable it to perform its statutory role of assisting the Police Board to fulfil its human rights requirements? The Republic of Ireland set up its statutory Human Rights Commission only a matter of weeks ago. Is it not time to upgrade the funding of the Human Rights Commission in the North to enable it to work with the commission in the South? That would enable them to build the joint programme of work and create the charter of rights, which are envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement, and which would be applicable to the citizens, political parties and the Governments on this island.
Is it not time to enhance the moneys of the Human Rights Commission in the North to enable it to work with its sister body in the South and ensure human rights compliance through a chartered bill of rights on this island? Is it not time to give the Human Rights Commission additional moneys so that the problems identified whereby the commission cannot adequately intervene on behalf of a third party in various court proceedings on this island can be addressed? The commission should be able to intervene so that people appearing before a court can benefit from the help of a statutory agency in preparing their case, and the court could also benefit from the expertise of the Human Rights Commission when a hearing is scheduled. In that way, rather than deny and diminish the role of the Human Rights Commission in the North, we can enable it and enhance its powers.
I make these points because as Frank Wright, an academic at Queen’s University, once said, "when conflicts are fully developed, they revolve around issues of law, order and justice". Our experiences on this island in the last 30 years confirm that the conflict has always revolved around issues of law, order and justice. That is why those issues are put centre-stage in the Good Friday Agreement: that is why reports were commissioned on policing and on criminal justice; and that is why the agreement provided for the creation of the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Police Ombudsman and the Prisoners’ Release Commission. To fully resolve the conflict that has revolved around issues of law, order and justice, we put mechanisms in place to address those issues, including the Human Rights Commission.
Why is that significant, not just for us, but internationally? When Mary Robinson was here in December 1999, she said that countries around the world, particularly those emerging from conflicts, were most interested in the Good Friday Agreement because of its human rights provisions. People around the world could easily and quickly identify with those provisions. If we can get our human rights mechanisms right — if they function properly and defend the rights of citizens and communities in the North — then we will provide an example of conflict resolution to other communities and other countries that are emerging from conflict. If we can get our bill of rights and our Human Rights Commission right, then we will be a candle in the darkness that is about to invade the world order.

Mr Edwin Poots: I support the motion. Not surprisingly, I cannot support the amendment that has been put down in the name of Mr Attwood and Ms Lewsley. The issue of human rights is fundamental — the establishment of good human rights is something we should all support. However, the role played by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has diminished the human rights issue in Northern Ireland. It has led many people to reflect that those who speak for human rights issues are speaking on behalf of criminals, terrorists, and people who do not wish goodwill to others in our country.
Often, those who represent the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission seem more interested in the rights of criminals and terrorists than in the rights of ordinary individuals. When the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was set up, Mo Mowlam gave it the kiss of death by her appointment of the board. Two SDLP members were appointed. It comes as no surprise that the SDLP are leading the fight today in defending the commission – [Interruption].

Mr Alban Maginness: Can the Member tell me who were the two members of the SDLP?

Mr Edwin Poots: Mrs Hegarty was one member. I do not have a note of the names with me, but another member of the SDLP was appointed at that time.

Mr Alban Maginness: No member of the SDLP was appointed to the Human Rights Commission.
That is fact. Ms Hegarty was not a member of the SDLP at the time of her appointment. She had left the SDLP several years before her appointment. I assume the other person to whom the Member refers is Mr Donnelly. He was an SDLP councillor back in the early 70s and is no longer a member of the party. He was not a member of the SDLP at the time of his appointment.

Mr Edwin Poots: I accept that you can leave the SDLP. You might not be able to leave the IRA just as easily, but you can leave the SDLP. Nevertheless, the fact that they had membership of the SDLP made their political allegiances quite clear.
The Human Rights Commission did not have representatives from the Unionist community, nor did it have people who had previously been members of either of the main Unionist parties. In fact, some people of good standing in the community, who had a good legal background and who were well placed to take positions on the Human Rights Commission, were refused places. I understand that as resignations from the Human Rights Commission have taken place, the current Secretary of State, and the previous Secretary of State, sought to remedy that situation. However, because people felt that the credibility of the Human Rights Commission was at a low ebb, they wanted to take no part in it.
It has failed to gain the confidence of the Unionist community by its actions. For example, it has given support to the Finucane, Hamill and Rosemary Nelson cases but has failed to give support to the cases of Billy Wright, Superintendents Buchanan and Breen or Lord Justice Gibson. The Commission also did a critical analysis on the use of plastic bullets but did not seem to take much account of those people who were in the line of fire and had to use plastic bullets. It did not appear to give much credence to the fact that people’s lives were being put at risk by petrol and acid bombs, bricks and even live bullets being fired at them, yet it is very critical of the use of plastic bullets by the RUC.
It complains about a lack of resources — the commission has some £750,000 — yet it clearly spent a great deal of money on the document ‘Enhancing the Rights of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People in Northern Ireland’. This is a fairly extensive document — a document that was not published without a great deal of cost. I have to say that some of the proposals in the document are extremely offensive. For example, it reckons that the Blood Transfusion Service’s ban on men who have engaged in anal sex, from donating blood — one of several categories of exclusion from blood donation — to be discrimination. The commission believes that it is a human right for homosexuals to be able to give blood. I say that it is a human right for people receiving blood to know that they are getting clean blood — blood that has not been contaminated with the HIV virus. I believe that it is essentially wrong to be claiming, on the one hand, to be protecting one person’s human rights but, on the other, to be attacking the human rights of other individuals.
Often when we see the case being put for one individual’s human rights, it actually undermines the human rights of another individual. I noted that its ‘Making a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland’ mentions language rights. This document says that everyone has the right to communicate with any public body through an interpreter, translator or facilitator. If we were to go down that road, with the Department for Regional Development having somebody in every office who could translate into Gaelic and into Ulster-Scots, and if every school, hospital and Housing Executive office in Northern Ireland were to have a translator, how much would it cost? What are the cost implications of many of the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission? If such costs were to be met, how many more people would be waiting for hip operations or cardiac surgery? How many more people would be discriminated against because too few houses were being built in their area?
The proposals of the Human Rights Commission, in many cases, are not costed. It claims that people are being discriminated against, but if the commission’s proposals were to be implemented, many more people would be discriminated against.
Mr Attwood defended the Human Rights Commission by reference to its support for the victims of the Omagh bomb. When representatives of the Human Rights Commission were before the Committee of the Centre, I asked what its views were on two particular victims of the Omagh bomb, the twin children who were murdered while still within their mother’s womb, seven months into her pregnancy. They did not have a view on that. They could not express a view on it.
Mr Attwood is therefore defending a Human Rights Commission that will not defend the human rights of unborn children. It could not admit that the rights of two unborn children were destroyed by the Real IRA. What sort of Human Rights Commission is that? The children were healthy in their mother’s womb, but because they did not happen to have been two months older, they were deemed not to have any human rights.
In relation to paramilitary organisations the Human Rights Commission has not done enough work. There have been 323 human rights abuses by these organisations, on all sides, in the last year, but I have heard no hue and cry from the commission about that, nor has it produced an extensive document on the matter. The commission has also neglected other issues, such as third-party planning appeals. It seems to have concentrated its efforts on what it would see as pro-prisoner, pro-terrorist and pro-Nationalist programmes. It has not done the work it should have been doing. It has not established faith among the Unionist community, and I do not believe it has established faith within the broader community who find terrorist and criminal acts offensive.
The Human Rights Commission has been on trial for the past three years. The funding it has received has been on a trial basis. Having been tried, it has been found wanting. I cannot therefore support Mr Attwood’s analysis and amendment, because the Human Rights Commission has failed — and failed miserably.

Sir John Gorman: I thank the Business Committee for giving up some of its time to allow this debate to continue. We will adjourn now until 2.00 pm when a number of Members wish to speak. We will have to ration time then.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, am I right in saying that when we return, time will be rationed, but that time overall was not rationed?

Sir John Gorman: We were using the same indicative times that you are aware of.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is inordinately unfair that a Member who is not the proposer or, indeed, not the proposer of an amendment was allowed an unlimited time, which means that other Members will have less when they return.

Sir John Gorman: He was allowed on the basis that he is a member of the Committee of the Centre. We will adjourn now until 2.00 pm.
The sitting was suspended at 1.04 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Many Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and for that reason I shall limit each Member to five minutes.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I oppose the motion and support the amendment. The motion should be seen for what it is — another attempt by Unionists to undermine the Good Friday Agreement. They want to purge, in the words of Sylvia Hermon, that section on rights, safeguards and equality to which they signed up to and now do not like. The words "rights" and "equality" are alien to the Unionist mindset, but the agreement and the Act put human rights at the centre of political, social and economic change on this island.
The Human Rights Commission has been given the specific task of ensuring that that happens. Part of the task is to advise the British Government on a bill of rights, complementary and additional to the Human Rights Commission, which will reflect the particular circumstances of the North. After 18 months and six- county-wide consultations with the commission, the UUP has suddenly discovered that all sorts of people, precisely 67% of Protestants and 88% of Catholics, think that the bill of rights it is not only a good idea, but is essential.
Unionism has never recognised, let alone reflected on, the particular circumstances of the North and the construction of a state whose very existence depended on division, inequality and the abuse of human rights. It is precisely because of that, and to address the human rights deficit, that Sinn Féin argued strongly that the sections on rights, safeguards and equality should ensure that the causes of conflict were prioritised and addressed.
All parties that signed up to the agreement accepted that and affirmed their commitment to mutual respect. However, the party that tabled today’s motion has done absolutely nothing to confirm its commitment to mutual respect and parity of esteem. It has never acknowledged the right to self-determination, the only human right for which an explicit formulation was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement, which was supported in referendums North and South. The motion is about trying to change the agreement and the composition of the Human Rights Commission because it does not suit the narrow Unionist agenda. It is an example of a party on the run: on the run from the DUP; on the run from the Human Rights Commission; and on the run from the agreement to which it signed up.
It is even out of step with its own people. They want a bill of rights, and they wish to contribute to it, judging by the e-mails that we have received. On 8 May, David Trimble, in one of his more lucid periods, said that the core principles of human rights and equality are woven into the fabric of the agreement and reflected in the Programme for Government. However, how do Unionists make progress on those core principles? They attack the Human Rights Commission for carrying out its remit as laid down in the agreement.
Yesterday, the media treated us to the unsavoury situation of two parties, the DUP and the UUP, scratching around for signatures for a motion to exclude democratically elected representatives in order to bring down the Assembly. The UUP has the audacity to censure the Human Rights Commission. One can see that it may feel the need to defend its junior Minister, Dermot Nesbitt, after his outrageous outburst at the launch of the consultation document ‘Making a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland’.
The attack on the commission and the outright rejection of the consultation document was not lost on the audience, which greeted his outburst with a stunned silence. Nor was it lost on them that the Minister was using the occasion to advance his narrow-minded, bigoted, party political position on a bill of rights before it had even got off the ground. I would suggest that he resign, but he is going to anyway.
This is not the first time that Unionism has dismissed efforts to enact a bill of rights here. When the late Sheelagh Murnaghan tried to do so in the 1960s, her efforts were stonewalled by the same Unionist mindset that is on display here. In retrospect, those Unionists might reflect that, had they placed a bill of rights on the political agenda then, this society might have been spared 30 years of conflict. There are many things in the draft document that Sinn Féin will challenge, but, overall, the draft pursues a liberal Unionist agenda. It is clear from the motion that the Unionists, not content with the British Government’s efforts to neutralise the commission through lack of powers and resources, want to put the commission and the agreement out of business. I oppose the motion.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I oppose the motion and support the amendment. There are several reasons for my opposition, but chief among them is my belief that the motion is pointless and out of time. My Colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party have expressed concern and reservation that the Human Rights Commission has exceeded its authority. They fear that the consultation document is too broad and that it covers rights that are not particular to Northern Ireland. The Human Rights Commission clearly sets out its remit and its approach to fulfilling that.
In the document, the commission quotes extensively from the Good Friday Agreement. It then goes on to explain various interpretations of Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances drawing, as appropriate, on international instruments and experience. It further states that the interpretation of the Bill should be based on human dignity, equality and freedom, without any threat to rights adequately protected by law.
After reading the consultation document, I can only commend the commission for its frankness. The Human Rights Commission does not claim to have the final answer for what is meant in paragraph 4 of the Good Friday Agreement about exclusive Northern Ireland rights. Instead, it explicitly asks for the opinions and reasoning of all people in Northern Ireland. The first three questions that it poses are an attempt to have us, the people of Northern Ireland, help define its remit.
It is only right that Members of the Assembly would have concerns and disagree with what the commission has set forth in its entirety. However, it is no surprise that those are the types of opinions that the commission wishes to hear. Members should be more effective in lobbying the Human Rights Commission about the ways in which it believes that it has exceeded its remit and by holding this debate today. Fortunately, they can do both. The ad hoc human rights consortium that supports a fully inclusive debate on a bill of rights is an example of effective lobbying. The consortium consists of representatives from over 50 voluntary and community groups.
‘Making a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland’ is merely a consultative document that can be changed, and more then likely it will be changed, perhaps as a result of this debate. However, I am, on the whole, pleased with its contents. Historically, the Alliance Party has supported a bill of rights, and I am pleased that it supports the concept of proportional representation, which ensures everyone’s right to participate in government. For a long time, we have advocated that such a bill incorporate international standards, which the document does.
Initially, my party was wary that the commission would interpret its remit too narrowly and focus exclusively on group rights. I am pleased that that has not happened. I agree with the reasoning to support the inclusion of a section on children’s rights and of strongly worded statements on women’s rights. I am sure that the proponents of the motion will argue that neither children nor women are unique to Northern Ireland, but I counter that with the point that, although they are not unique, they have suffered under our unique circumstances. For too long their rights, not to mention the rights of ethnic minorities, have been at the bottom of every agenda.
We need a strong bill of rights to address those past wrongs and to protect the needs of all communities. I oppose the motion for those reasons. The document is for consultation; it is not set in stone. The commission is seeking our advice, as well as the advice of many others in the Province. It acknowledges its remit and explains how and why it has interpreted it. In the document, the commission says that the final delivery of an effective bill of rights is the concern of everyone interested in the search for long-term peace and stability in Northern Ireland — the two Governments, the political parties, civil society and all the people of Northern Ireland.
Finally, many of the rights may seem universal and may have a particular bearing here. Now is the time to try to improve those rights for all in Northern Ireland, and not only those in the two perceived communities. I support the amendment.

Mr David Ervine: Dr Birnie began by assuring us of his belief in human rights. He felt the need to repeat that, so he finished off by assuring us of his commitment to human rights. What came in between was a right-wing rant — right wing in its attitude to economics and economic opportunity, and right wing generally. It will be interesting to see whether the Ulster Unionist Party is the broad church that we are told that it is — Genghis Khan elements early, and perhaps a few Joe Stalin elements later. However, it seems that we may not see that. I have seen this before. It may not have been to do with human rights; it may have been to do with socialism or with how economics might be dealt with differently in society. The death knell for that was sectarianism and a refusal to believe that if you were Unionist or Protestant that was anything to do with you. It was a Catholic and Republican matter; it was not a matter for ordinary citizens.
"Reds under the bed" — and I am not accusing Dr Birnie of saying that — have been alive and well in society for a very long time. I can remember people who are now Members of this House branding people as "reds under the bed" because they advocated something that was different from the style and nature of what they had lived under for so long.
Dr Birnie went through the booklet produced by the commission and made arguments. Rather than deal with those, let me tell him something of which he may or may not be aware. I have had the luxury — dubious as it may be — of sitting in Committee Rooms here, and I have heard members of the Human Rights Commission being interrogated with abject hostility by representatives of the Unionist community on all kinds of issues. To pick up the document and show your hostility to it does not tell the whole truth. There are Members present who have been on those Committees and who know that. There was abject bitterness and hostility because somehow those people were seen to be defending terrorists and sticking their noses in where they did not belong.
Perhaps we should take ownership of an element that would assist our institutions to function more practically. In the words of Edwin Poots, the Unionist community has had no ownership of this. Why has it had no ownership? What are we afraid of? Are we afraid to defend a human being’s right? Are Protestants and Unionists not human beings? What is there to be frightened about? That is a sign of the insecurity that permeates our society, an insecurity that is not in the first instance proffered to us by our enemy. It is proffered to us often in the first instance by our leadership: be afraid of this; be afraid of that; be afraid of the dark. It will be difficult to see a human rights system here that works properly, because I do not imagine that a sterling job can be done by the commission, given the pathetic amount of money that it has been allocated.
It seems that all Prods are clairvoyant — and there is never any good news. They are afraid of the dark and rather than switch on the light — take ownership of something and be part of it, so that it would be the way that they wanted it to be — they run away from it. That is what is happening today. The refusal to allow or encourage the Unionist community to take ownership of the Human Rights Commission makes it difficult for all of us to sell the concept of human rights.
A Member from one of the parties — he is not in the Chamber now — once said that there should be no such thing as human rights legislation in Northern Ireland. Perhaps, he reflects more accurately the feelings of Members on those Benches. We shall hear some strange stuff in the next half-hour about how people think that they are so decent as regards human rights.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I am also concerned about some earlier comments. Mr Edwin Poots’s remarks about giving blood reminded me what giving blood was all about. Members who gave blood here last year will know that people give it because they know that, some day, someone will need it — not because they expect to get it back automatically. Perhaps that also applies to human rights. To have proper regard for human rights means that we should enshrine in law something from which we may not necessarily benefit, but which other people — Unionist or Nationalist — need. That is a better way to talk about giving blood than the disgraceful comments made by the Member for Lagan Valley about the rights of gays and lesbians.

Mr Edwin Poots: Will the Member give way?

Prof Monica McWilliams: I will not give way. The Member had an opportunity to clarify his point after he made it. It is shameful that a Member should make such a comment.
The speech made by the mover of the motion made me despair. He calls himself an economist, while arguing that Northern Ireland is doing so well that we no longer have to concern ourselves with our deprivation and poverty rates, because they are coming into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Reports produced by agencies such as the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) repeatedly state that, given the proportion of children in the Northern Ireland population, our poverty rates far exceed those elsewhere. Did we not hear Sir Reg Empey refer to that yesterday when he introduced the draft Programme for Government? We must take account of the fact that we have fallen so far behind. It is good for us to enshrine rights that deal with economic and social deprivation.
Dr Birnie may have received the same faxes as I did from Save the Children, from the Multicultural Resource Centre, from Barnardo’s, from Women in Politics and from Amnesty International. All those organisations expressed concern about the idea that we should have anything to fear from the wide-ranging consultation carried out by the Human Rights Commission, and they restated their support for the commission. Despite a lack of resources, the Human Rights Commission had to encourage other organisations to set up their own discussions on human rights. It welcomed that opportunity. For some reason, Dr Birnie said that it was not good for the Human Rights Commission to be involved in campaigning and debating and that its role was purely consultative. Does it not enrich our civic life to have a commission involved in campaigning for and debating a bill of rights?
These are good days for Northern Ireland — despite the depressing and distressing scenes that one sees on the streets. In the future, Members will be able to tell their children — if not their grandchildren — that they were involved when the country was drawing up a bill of rights. How many people in history have had that wonderful opportunity? However, Members are denying that opportunity to the communities and are saying that the Human Rights Commission should not have bothered campaigning and debating something as important as the rights of a country’s people.
Dr Birnie also said that the commission stirs up extraordinary expectations. We have had an extraordinary past, and it is little wonder that people have raised themselves to have a vision of a different future. They will not be disappointed. If people have been involved in the discussions and take ownership of those discussions, they know that it will be a win-win situation. They know that they will have to give something when the bill of rights is decided.
Did those Members who criticised so loudly make submissions during the previous consultation, and do they intend to do so following the current round?

Mr Robert McCartney: The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was doomed from the moment the basic human rights of Unionists were denied in the selection and appointment of its members. Excellently qualified candidates with no Unionist political associations, senior solicitors in mixed partnerships and university lecturers of consummate intelligence were set aside for others of questionable competence.
For Ulster Unionists to complain that the Human Rights Commission has failed to discharge its remit under the agreement is another example of pro-agreement selective amnesia, which affects so many of those who negotiated and signed it. The commission’s mandate and remit clearly states that its duty is to constitute a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. That is similar to the Ulster Unionists’ attitude to Patten: when the outcome does not suit them they deny that they granted the remit that brought about the mischief.
It is pointless to complain about the job that the commission has made of its remit when the basic fault is the existence of the remit. A bill of rights for Northern Ireland means provincial human rights for Northern Ireland that do not apply to our fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The concept of provincial human rights violates two basic principles. First, there is the equality of citizenship. The rights and duties of all citizens in the United Kingdom should be equal. Secondly, human rights are universal. Their very claim to special privilege in law is that they apply to all human beings, and across all provincial and national boundaries. Universality is the fundamental basis of human rights.
The proposals set out in the commission’s draft bill of rights would move Northern Ireland further out of the United Kingdom than it already is, and that outcome should have been foreseen by those in the Ulster Unionist Party who negotiated and signed the Belfast Agreement. The fact that they did not foresee that means that they stand condemned as incompetent negotiators.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and other non-statutory bodies who work in the same field have a case to answer, because their efforts to protect human rights almost exclusively focus on the state, in all its aspects, as the primary source of human rights violations.
Woolly-minded liberals draw no distinction between competing human rights. They draw no distinction between the right to silence and the right to life. Those groups have taken what some might unkindly characterise as the human rights industry and almost completely failed to respond to the growing trend in the real world of citizens’ human rights being violated by non-state bodies. The Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, recently said that human rights will have to take second place to the security of life and the security of the state. The commission has almost entirely ignored the violation of human rights by non-state bodies — paramilitaries and their increasing band of criminal auxiliaries. That state of affairs might be characterised as the privatisation of human rights violations.
It is little short of a scandal that the commission and others have little to say about, and devote a small proportion of their resources to doing something about, the punishment beatings, intimidation, extortion, robberies and organised fraud conducted by paramilitary groups — some of whose frontmen and frontwomen sit in the Assembly and enjoy Executive office.
I listened to a farrago of bitterness and a myopic view of the commission’s report from Mrs Nelis. She represents a party that is inextricably linked to a paramilitary organisation that has committed some of the most inhuman, horrible and outrageous violations of human rights, yet she has the brass neck to come here and lecture other citizens who belong to democratic parties about how they should behave.
The Human Rights Commission should start to address the real issues. Those are the violations of the most fundamental human rights: the right to live; the right to bring up children in peace; and the right to have personal integrity from violent personal injury.

Mr Duncan Dalton: I support the motion put forward by my Colleague Dr Birnie, not because I am opposed to human rights — as suggested by one Sinn Féin Member — and not because Unionism is afraid of human rights. I have had an interest in human rights for many years. I studied the subject at university, and I continue to maintain an interest.
I am a firm believer in human rights. I believe in equal political and civil rights for all citizens in the United Kingdom, throughout the European Union and the world. I want to see those rights protected. However, I am concerned that the new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has not been doing that. It has not been fulfilling its remit. Instead, it has tried to create some kind of social engineering document in order to put forward a ’60s-style socialist view of society. The commission wants to try to impose that view on the rest of us and take away the decisions that we are supposed to make about political life from political instruments such as the Assembly.
I support the right of women to choose whether to have an abortion, and I support the right to same-sex marriage. However, those issues should not be contained in a bill of rights. They are political issues. They are issues on which one makes a political decision in the political institutions that we have set up. They are issues for us to argue, not to be laid down in a bill of rights to be discussed and ruled on by courts. That is not the appropriate way with which to deal with those issues. They are not the subjects of fundamental human rights; they are political decisions.
In some ways I would like to distance myself from the remarks that Mr Poots made, as I am uncomfortable with them, but, at the same time, he reflected a view that is held in the Unionist community. The Human Rights Commission has singularly failed to promote an awareness of human rights culture and of human rights in the Unionist community. As Mr McCartney said, that happened because the then Secretary of State took no regard of her legal duty to appoint a commission that fully reflected the community, and instead appointed from within the human rights lobby or industry.
That is a great shame and has been the disaster that has underpinned much of what the Human Rights Commission has tried to do since — and this is where I disagree with Mr McCartney. The remit that was given to the commission in the Belfast Agreement was not to draw up a bill of rights, but
"to consult and advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland."
Its job is to advise and consult on supplementary rights. Although the European Convention has not been incorporated, its remedies are available to UK citizens through the Human Rights Act 1998. That was probably one of the major pieces of legislation to go through Westminster since the European Communities Act 1972. It represents a significant change in the way in which the legal system in the United Kingdom will operate. It has an effect on Northern Ireland and has done so since October 2000.
Whenever the Human Rights Commission thinks it is relevant, it will mention the Human Rights Act 1998, but it does not look at the Act. It does not take account of the effect that the 1998 Act has had, and instead runs off to produce a completely separate document.
The Human Rights Commission was supposed to ask what extra rights and protections were necessary to meet Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances. The answer to that question could be that no additional rights to those in the European Convention are needed. The commission could have concluded that the European Convention on Human Rights was sufficient to protect the political and civil rights of Northern Ireland people as part of the United Kingdom, and through the protections offered to them by the 1998 Act. The commission did not do that. It said that it had been given a remit to produce a bill of rights and that that is what it would do. It produced an astounding, incredible document that has no precedent in international law.
My other concern is that, in producing the document, the commission has significantly alienated the Unionist community. Instead of being able to embrace human rights culture and look at human rights as offering protection for the Unionist culture, the Unionist community has been alienated by the commission’s course of action. What is the commission doing about the difficult issues, such as the right to assemble? Human rights are not about protecting the rights that one particularly favours; it is about protecting all rights, which include those on difficult issues with which one may not agree. If someone wishes to produce fascist or racist work he has a right to do that, and that right should be defended. I may not agree with such people but their right to express their opinions has to be protected. That is also true when it comes to the right to peaceful assembly. The commission has simply invented rights to try and oppose what should be protected.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I support the amendment. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which derives its mandate from the Good Friday Agreement, is fundamentally important. Without the commission, the agreement’s vision of a new beginning for Northern Ireland based on human rights for all cannot be realised.
It is all the more regrettable that the commission has not been given the budget and powers commensurate with its importance under the agreement. The SDLP welcomes recent improvements in the commission’s budget but regrets the time that that has taken and the detrimental effect that that has had on the commission’s ability to engage with wider civic society on the bill of rights. Our party also regrets the lack of powers given to the Human Rights Commission.
The commission recently reviewed its powers and effectiveness, and made detailed recommendations to the Secretary of State. However, the review makes for sad reading. It shows that, in the past two years, the Northern Ireland Office and criminal justice agencies have been able to stymie the commission’s investigations through non-co-operation. It also shows how the commission has been powerless in the face of such obstruction, despite assurances at Westminster by the then Secretary of State, MoMowlam, that legislation would provide for full co-operation. Those assurances have not been honoured. That is why the SDLP has called for the commission’s powers to be greatly enhanced. We have made it clear that the commission should enjoy the same extensive powers as those enjoyed by the Irish Human Rights Commission. Nothing less will bring our commission into line with the principles on the status and functioning of national institutions for protection and promotion of human rights known as the Paris Principles. Nothing less will do.
The SDLP has proposed an amendment to the motion to highlight the commission’s lack of powers and to call for those defects to be remedied. The Secretary of State has been considering a review of the commission’s powers, but he has not responded yet. We await his acceptance of the commission’s recommendations.
Despite all of this, the Human Rights Commission has discharged its mandate admirably. That can be clearly seen in the bill of rights.
The Good Friday Agreement states that the commission must consult and advise on the scope of defining rights supplementary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The commission is doing that. It has consulted; it has produced draft advice; and it is consulting on that advice. The agreement says that the commission should draw on "international instruments and experience." It has done so by examining countless international instruments. The agreement also says that the commission should
"reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland".
It has accomplished that by laying emphasis on economic and social rights. Those rights can form the basis of a common agenda that can heal the divisions in Northern Ireland.
If there is one thing that the commission has not done, it is to make sufficiently strong provision for parity of esteem, and just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities. The SDLP considers that a fundamental issue, because it is fundamental to the agreement itself. We would have wished for clearer provision for that matter, in order to reflect the agreement better. To base the rights on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is not enough. The agreement, itself an international instrument, goes further by guaranteeing the equal treatment of both communities’ aspirations, as opposed to merely their cultural identities.
The higher protection of rights given by the agreement deserves clearer recognition. However, this is just a consultation paper. It is no surprise that we, or any other party, should comment on it. It does not mean that the Human Rights Commission has not carried out its duties under the agreement.
It is regrettable that Unionist politicians have engaged in a negative debate on the commission. That is based on a complete misunderstanding of the issues. For example, I have heard complaints that some Unionists believe that the principle of consent should be included in the bill of rights —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Please draw your remarks to a close.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: A bill of rights is just that — a bill of rights. I support the amendment.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I support the motion.
Many people will find it odd that the Ulster Unionist Party complained last week about the Patten Report. It said that its members on the board would not be bound by Patten and the police legislation, because it was not what they understood would be in the agreement. At the start of the week, the UUP drew up a motion, which has yet to be put before the House, to exclude Sinn Féin, because it had been conned on the issue of letting terrorists into Government with their guns. Today the party tells us that it has been conned about the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. To get it wrong once is bad, twice is disastrous, but a third time is criminal.
Those people said that they had negotiated a good agreement, and they sold it to the people of Northern Ireland on that basis. Today’s motion, which we shall be supporting, is a sad indictment of the job that was done when the Belfast Agreement was signed.
Those who oppose the motion have not dealt with the essence of the complaints that were made. Instead, they have pointed the finger and implied that anyone who supports the motion is against human rights.
I listened to David Ervine’s remarks. All his attention was directed at the Unionist Benches. I did not stay to listen to the regular rant from Mary Nelis, but I can guess what she said about human rights. The organisation with which she is identified is totally immersed in a culture of denial of human rights. However, the House did not hear one word about that hypocrisy from David Ervine. All his ire was directed at those who support the motion.
Given the commission’s remit and membership, did anyone really expect anything more than a liberal-left, politically correct, Nationalist-driven agenda? As one commentator remarked, the commission was Mo Mowlam’s parting two fingers to the Unionist community. According to a parliamentary answer, six members of the commission were members of the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ), a Nationalist front organisation. What else can be expected from that? We have seen its actions here.
The Human Rights Commission has become the voice of the villain. Its representatives appeared before the Assembly to talk about extra powers for the police to investigate the financial irregularities of criminals. Without even having seen the code of practice — the commission admitted that it had not seen it — they recommended that it needed changing to protect the criminal.
There have been complaints about the commission’s lack of money. However, there was no lack of money when it came to protecting the Omagh bombers. The commission has taken two cases to court. One action sought to protect the identities of the Omagh bombers from being broadcast on ‘Panorama’. The other case went to the High Court to enhance the powers of the commission and allow it to intervene in third-party cases.
What we have seen from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which the document shows, is a desire to extend its powers. For example, if someone complains that a hospital or school closure impinges on his or her human rights, the commission wants the power to take such a case to court and for the judge to overrule decisions made by elected Members of the Assembly. In fact, at a recent meeting to discuss extra powers, the commission wanted powers to enter properties, seize documents, and so on. It wanted to become another Special Branch, only with more powers. It is right not to give the commission extra powers. The one way to put a rein on the commission is to use an economic stranglehold and not give it any more money.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We must question the reason behind the motion and its timing, given that the consultation process on the bill of rights is ongoing. The consultation process, which was launched in March 2000, has seen 11 different pamphlets distributed. Nine independent advisory groups were set up, 400 educators were trained, and educational videos and manuals were produced. The commission invited independent speakers, who included the president of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. A total of 230 submissions have been received, and 22 public meetings have taken place.
Given all that, why did the Ulster Unionist Party not raise its concerns and contribute to that process?

Dr Esmond Birnie: Will the Member give way?

Dr Dara O'Hagan: No, I have only five minutes.
It makes one wonder whether Unionists are using the motion not only to attack the commission, but to renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement and to produce a commission that they can influence.
The Good Friday Agreement envisaged a far-reaching bill of rights that extended protection beyond the two communities to cover all communities, including ethnic minorities. It was to cover rights that would reflect and address the North of Ireland’s particular circumstances. Those rights include socio-economic rights, children’s rights, the rights of the elderly and women’s rights. Furthermore, it was to be a free-standing bill of rights that built on, and went further than, international instruments. It is pertinent to ask just what Unionists are afraid of. Human rights are not about Nationalist or Unionist rights; they are about the rights of every single individual in this society.
The amendment, which my party is supporting, states that the commission has been hindered in discharging its remit due to limits on its powers and resources. That is absolutely correct. It has been stated here — in a different way, of course — that the commission is not representative. Yes, it is not representative. Catholics, women and Nationalists are under-represented, and there are no representatives from the ethnic minorities, from people with disabilities or from the gay and lesbian community — in fact, from all the groups covered by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
The draft bill of rights produced by the commission does not go far enough. It fails, for example, to recognise specifically the rights of political ex-prisoners. The British Government failed to fund the Human Rights Commission adequately at an early stage. The commission has been unable to function effectively because it has been undermined from the start by lack of resources and by the failure of the British Government to give it the necessary powers, such as those of subpoena and discovery.
The commission was further curtailed by Lord Justice Carswell’s finding that it did not have the powers to intervene in cases as a third party, or amicus curiae. The British Government have failed to legislate to give those powers to the Human Rights Commission, powers similar to those held by other non-governmental organisations. Indeed, the commission is not governed by the Paris Principles, the guidelines followed by all human rights organisations throughout the world.
The Secretary of State has still not acted on the commission’s report of February 2001 despite that report’s recommendations on the changes required to improve its effectiveness.
Much more needs to be done in the field of human rights, particularly regarding the representativeness of the Human Rights Commission. However, we must applaud the commission’s work so far, despite its inadequacies and lack of resources.
Most of Mr Poots comments were disgraceful, but those concerning blood donations, in particular, were shameful to the House. It was an attack on people who suffer from AIDS, haemophilia and hepatitis. Unfortunately, that is indicative of the backward thinking among so many people in this society.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Everyone is entitled to human rights, but things have to be fair and equal. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has failed to propose recommendations in line with its remit. The Belfast Agreement charged the commission with advising and consulting with the UK Government on additional human rights, which could be introduced by law to further safeguard the identity and ethos of both communities.
The commission has done its bit in keeping open the constitutional debate by mentioning Northern Ireland’s competing and equally legitimate aspirations. The commission has been set up by the British Government and must provide society with equal human rights for all people in Northern Ireland in the context of the United Kingdom. The consultation document mentions self-determination, but not the principle of consent, which was endorsed under the Belfast Agreement.
The bill of rights aims to promote mutual tolerance and respect among all sections of the community. However, the commission fails to be pragmatic about the reality. A bill of rights will not remove the main threat to human rights that prevails in our society — that posed by Sinn Féin/IRA, which still holds on to arms.
The report also deals with the rights of young people. The House will know that the main threat to them comes from bully boys whose actions are directed by paramilitary organisations. The commission fails to mention that. Our young people need to be adequately protected by law from punishment beatings and from drug pushers.
Regarding the issue of job equality, the best person should get the job. We must safeguard an employer’s right to choose the type of person that he wants to employ. That is not sufficiently recognised by the bill of rights’ recommendations.
The document spent much time stressing past crimes of the state in dealing with terrorist violence. However, a vital omission from the document is that the state has a legitimate monopoly in the use of force. That principle defines a state. Safeguards must be adhered to. However, the state’s hands must not be tied in discharging its legitimate function of ensuring law and order.
The Human Rights Commission has not safeguarded the culture of the majority of the population. It is now politically incorrect for people of my culture to celebrate or express beliefs. That was not addressed. Human rights are weak on that issue.
The Human Rights Commission has proven to be spineless, with a false view of our world. Our world is not ideal, and it is futile to think that the commission can create a perfect society. It has failed to adopt a balanced approach to the establishment of human rights. It has undermined many valuable traditional institutions in our society, which include the sanctity of marriage. Its view is contrary to the distinct nature of Northern Ireland’s society. Therefore the commission has ignored its remit and offered a series of proposals that would offend most people in Northern Ireland.
I realise that the rights of the minority should be protected. However, in its efforts to please the minority, the commission has forgotten about the majority.

Mr Alban Maginness: Even by the House’s standards, this has been one of the most dispiriting and disappointing debates to date. I hope to enliven it and raise the standard a little bit. I was deeply depressed by the speeches from the Unionist Benches. David Ervine went to the heart of the issue: the Unionist parties, and sadly the Ulster Unionist Party in particular, seem to have no confidence in human rights. They seem to have a negative reaction to human rights. They see it as the preserve of the Nationalist, Republican or Catholic community — something that does not belong to them.
However, that is not reflected in the community. I refer, in particular, to the Protestant community. Some 215 organisations ranging from Age Concern to the Tullyalley Community Association contributed to the Human Rights Commission’s deliberations. Those organisations reflect a wide spectrum of Northern Ireland society. Ordinary people in the Unionist or Protestant community have a belief in human rights and have confidence in the Human Rights Commission. I cannot understand why a party that is committed to the Good Friday Agreement cannot embrace the concept of human rights and support the body that has been set up to advance human rights in Northern Ireland.
I am told that the Human Rights Commission has gone outside its terms of reference. The terms state, as Mr McCartney — and I notice he never stays to the end of the debate — rightly said, that
"the new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will be invited to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience. These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and — taken together with the ECHR — to constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland."
I cannot see how the commission has gone outside its terms of reference. The Human Rights Commission has faithfully discharged its duty under its terms of reference. It has produced a draft bill of human rights for people’s considerations. It is a consultative document; there is nothing here that the document says must be included in the bill of rights. The Human Rights Commission is providing its own suggestions, as well as those from a wide range of organisations and people in the community.
What is wrong with that? How can that offend anybody in the Chamber, Unionist or Nationalist? The Human Rights Commission has discharged its duties very well on a budget of £750,000, which is chicken feed in comparison to the figures that other public organisations funded by the Northern Ireland Office receive. The Police Ombudsman and other organisations receive much more than that. The commission is strapped for funds, and it needs additional funding. Its funding should be between £1·5 million and £2 million per year. If the commission were given that sort of funding, it could discharge its duties much better. The Human Rights Commission rightly pointed out that it is underfunded and that it does not have sufficient powers. Its powers and its independence do not reflect the Paris Principles, which are internationally recognised as the minimum requirements.
One of the many weird criticisms that Dr Birnie made of the commission was that it had a maximalist approach to human rights. Why would it not take that approach? If it had a minimalist approach to human rights, it would be failing in its duty.

Mr Denis Haughey: The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is a non-transferable matter, so I must limit my response to the facts. The commission is required to consult with and advise the Secretary of State on the scope for a bill of rights. The consultation document published on 4 September 2001 forms the commission’s initial advice to the Secretary of State. It will provide its final advice to the Secretary of State when the consultation process has ended. The Secretary of State will decide whether the commission has fulfilled its remit. I have listened carefully and noted the range of views expressed.
Several important matters have been raised, and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will consider those remarks carefully.
The Executive have yet to consider whether they will make a response to the bill of rights, but if they do, they will consider carefully the views that have been expressed.
With regard to the allegations made about the composition of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that the Secretary of State must
"as far as practicable secure that the commissioners, as a group, are representative of the community in Northern Ireland."
The Secretary of State is responsible for the appointment of the 52 members of the commission; the Executive do not have a role in that.

Mr Alex Attwood: Some comments have been made about the membership of the Human Rights Commission. Whatever we think about how representative the commission’s membership is, the comments that were made were, at the very least, unfortunate and, at the very worst, potentially dangerous. Will the Deputy Speaker consult Hansard to examine the comments made by Mr Poots when he referred to the "pro-prisoner, pro-terrorist and pro-Nationalist" activities of the Human Rights Commission? The word "pro-terrorist", in particular, puts members of public bodies in the North — in this case, members of the Human Rights Commission — at risk. I request that the Deputy Speaker review that matter.
Someone on the other Benches somewhat generously referred to Mrs Nelis’s comments as a rant. Mrs Nelis said
"that rights and equality are alien words to the mindset of Unionism".
Regardless of my thoughts on the motion, or what is happening in Unionism, to portray Unionists as having a mindset alien to rights and equality does not inform the debate. Rather, it gives an insight into the mind of the person who would say such a thing and suggests to me that that person is pathological in her attitude towards another community in the North. That attitude is manifest in the failure of both Sinn Féin Members who spoke today to accept the invitation from the Unionist Members to comment on abuses of human rights that emanate from the Republican movement and community. Their silence and lack of response on that reveals much about those who criticise the Unionist approach to human rights, a criticism which, in many ways, I share.
Mr McCartney stated that the Human Rights Commission
"has almost entirely ignored the violation of human rights by non- state bodies".
Mr McCartney almost entirely ignored the activities of the Human Rights Commission. As well as its intervention on behalf of the Omagh families, it made submissions to the Ad Hoc Committee on the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill 2001 and expressed views on the proposed Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, both of which are attempts to purge our community of the effects of organised crime. It has made comments to the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the relocation of victims of paramilitary intimidation. It has contributed to the International Council on Human Rights Policy report on human-rights approaches to armed groups. The portrayal of the Human Rights Commission as a body that entirely ignores non-state abuses is contradicted by many of its activities.
Duncan Shipley Dalton said that there was no need to go beyond the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. That view may be valid. However, that was not the mandate given to the Human Rights Commission. Page 16, paragraph 4, of the Good Friday Agreement explicitly says that the commission should consider
"rights supplementary to those of the European Convention on Human rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland".
It then adds
"These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem".
That explicitly goes beyond the European Convention on Human Rights. Given that the Good Friday Agreement gives a mandate to move beyond the European Convention on Human Rights, the commission is quite right to do so.
The implementation of human rights in the North is an opportunity, not a threat. We hear from the Unionist Benches that it is considered a threat, not an opportunity. The Unionists should heed what Monica McWilliams said about the growing volume of opinion in the North and heed too those who are articulating the need for human rights — the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, Save the Children, Women into Politics, Amnesty International, the Multi-Cultural Resource Centre (Northern Ireland) and the many organisations that gave submissions during the consultation process on a bill of rights. They are representative of the Northern Ireland community. Many of their members may also be Unionists, Nationalists, Loyalists or Republicans, but they all can see that the new civic religion in our society, and in many societies around the world, is the issue of human rights. They are embracing them, and it is time for us to do the same.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I would like to thank all who participated in the debate, especially the junior Minister, who had the difficult task of speaking about something for which he does not have responsibility.
As time is tight, I will not attempt a point-by-point rebuttal, tempting though it would be. However, the second Sinn Féin Member to speak, Dr O’Hagan, implied that my party had failed to make a submission to the commission. If you look at page 154 of the document you will see that we are listed there.
In listening to some of the comments this afternoon, particularly from those Members speaking against the motion or, indeed, in favour of the amendment, I rather think that some such persons were adopting a position similar to that adopted by a former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ken Clarke. In 1993, he urged Members of Parliament to vote for the Maastricht Treaty, but he then went on to admit, quite candidly, that he had never read the document. We have read this document, and in it, and, indeed, in what has been said this afternoon, we have not found evidence that the commission would have lacked, or would now lack, resources if it had stuck to its defined remit as stated in the Belfast Agreement.
We have not heard evidence to counter the crucial point that many social and economic rights, desirable though they may be as objectives, cannot be justiciable. Poverty cannot be abolished by a decision in court. It needs public spending, a sound economic policy and a productive economy — all very important items — but it cannot be solved by a human rights document. That is not, to use Mr Ervine’s allegation, a piece of so-called right-wing rant. It is a sound philosophical argument, supported internationally by many commentators on human rights.
Has the Human Rights Commission gone beyond the agreement? Yes, it has. It is condemned out of its own mouth. On page 14 of the September document, the commission says
"In so far as a narrow interpretation of paragraph 4" —
that is of the section in the agreement —
"might be thought to rule out the recommendation of certain rights, the Commission is satisfied that it can properly rely on its general power under section 69(3)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998".
It therefore argues, to my mind not convincingly, that it cannot simply rely on the agreement — it relies on the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That is clearly a case of going beyond the agreement. I repeat what I said — we are not against rights per se; we simply want full implementation of the agreement in this regard, as in others.
I listened closely to Mr Attwood’s summing-up speech. In closing, he got very euphoric and referred to the rights agenda as "the civic religion". At least we agreed on that, as I referred to it as "a secular religion". Let us put it to the test. If this really is what the people of Northern Ireland want, let it be tested by a referendum. However, I note that there is a suggestion that the bill of rights should not be approved by a referendum, although, to be fair, I have not heard that from the commission. I heard it from other lobby groups. I suspect the reason for it is that they know a majority of people in Northern Ireland would not vote for many of the suggestions within such a document as this.
I support the motion, and, contrary to some rumours that I have been hearing over lunchtime, I hope that we will move rapidly to a vote on it rather than have a so-called stay of execution for perhaps six days. The matter is sufficiently important to be voted on now, on its own merits, without resort to a procedural fig leaf.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr Birnie has pre-empted my next comments. I wish to inform Members that a petition of concern has been tabled in respect of this motion. Under Standing Order 27, no vote may therefore be held until at least one day has passed. Standing Order 27 states that
"A Petition of Concern in respect of any matter shall be in the form of a notice signed by at least 30 Members presented to the Speaker. No vote may be held on a matter which is the subject of a Petition of Concern until at least one day after the Petition of Concern has been presented."
I understand that the Business Committee considered this matter at its meeting today. In accordance with its decision, the vote on the matter before Members will be taken during the plenary session on Monday 1 October at the commencement of private Member’s business. Copies of the petition are available in the Business Office for Members who wish to inspect it.

Fuel Poverty

Mr David Ford: I beg to move
That this Assembly encourages the Regulator General for Electricity and Gas to contribute to the eradication of fuel poverty by increasing the energy efficiency levy to £5·00 per customer, creating £3· 6 million to tackle fuel poverty.
This motion will have more immediate practical effect on the citizens of Northern Ireland than the one we have just debated, so I trust Members will move quickly to a vote. For those who have not been subject to the effective and competent lobbying which many of us have experienced during recent weeks, I will explain the workings of the energy efficiency levy. For many it is something that gets lost in our electricity bills.
The levy is funded from electricity bills at the rate of £2 per consumer. To date, it has achieved £3·4 million, which has been used towards addressing energy efficiency and fuel poverty matters. It has been calculated to produce benefits of around £29 million for the neediest in society, which is an effective rate of return, given what happens in most areas of Government expenditure. Two thirds of the expenditure has been directly targeted towards the fuel poor and has probably achieved a reduction in the region of 137 kilotonnes of carbon.
In Northern Ireland there are around 170,000 households that suffer from fuel poverty. It is a major issue, and there is much to be done. We have evidence that the regulator wishes to increase the levy, subject to political support. That support should be registered today in the Assembly. The regulator proposes that the levy be increased to £5 per annum for each consumer, which amounts to less than 6p each per week. This is not a significant sum for an individual, and the benefits have already been proven.
The extra £2 million that might be raised will be targeted towards perhaps as many as 80% of the fuel poor, which could save in excess of £20 million, and perhaps as much as £22 million, per annum. This is a significant amount of money.
Although I am a mere Opposition Back-Bencher, I must remind the Members of the four largest parties of their commitments to the Programme for Government. This will help to meet UK national targets on fuel poverty and cut greenhouse gases. In Great Britain the levy is £1·80, rather than our £2. An immediate increase to £3·60 has been proposed, with a further phased increase to £4·80. An increase to £5 might follow. The effect on consumers will be minimal compared to the benefits.
Suggestions have been made about how what is a good scheme could be improved. The idea is that more money should be channelled towards total fuel poverty schemes. We have seen examples of small ACE schemes in the past, which carried out limited insulation work. Some grants were available, but there was a piecemeal approach. The concept of dealing with every aspect of a household’s fuel poverty, from insulation to improving heating sources, must be realised to ensure that those in need benefit from the scheme.
There is a need to improve existing structures. There are too many small schemes which, no matter how willing their workers, do not have the benefits of economies of scale and cannot work across the client groups.
If we could improve the management of schemes, we would, doubtless, see even more benefit. The Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG) must take a lead in discussions about how to monitor the effectiveness of schemes and improve the use of the energy efficiency levy. Already, there is a payback that amounts to nine times the original expenditure. Neighbourhood Energy Action and other groups estimate that there could be a further increase and suggest that we could improve existing schemes and produce additional resources.
Some Members expressed concern about the content of the motion, and an amendment has been proposed. Members feel that there is a problem with the existing scheme because there is a flat-rate charge. There is a strong argument that anything that is, in effect, a tax ought to be progressive, so that those who can afford it pay more, and those who cannot afford it pay less. However, we must recognise the reality of the current scheme. The money is collected by Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE). Each consumer pays the same levy, regardless of ability to pay, and there is no administration charge for raising the money; given that we are all likely to criticise NIE later on, we should at least record that fact. We must ensure that the money that is raised is used for its intended purposes.
It has been argued that if we pass the motion, we will let the Executive off the hook, since the Executive have to fund such schemes. The Executive fund other related areas of work — for example, through the Housing Executive budget — and I do not oppose the idea of an increase in the budget given to the Housing Executive to improve the services that it provides. We are working with limited resources, but an increase in the levy would provide additional money for the Department of Finance and Personnel.
It is also argued that if the motion were to be passed, we would let NIE off the hook. I could engage cheerfully in happy populism, telling everyone about what a dreadful bunch of wicked capitalists NIE are, and about how they got the industry cheap and take too much money. However, there is no mechanism — short of primary legislation, which might well be struck down by human rights legislation — through which the Assembly could enforce such a levy. The existing energy efficiency levy can be increased, and, instead of demanding pie in the sky, we should find a realistic way in which to improve the scheme.
I discussed the amendment with the proposer. I am not sure whether the Ulster Hospital is wired up to receive Assembly television; if it is, Jim Wells will be watching and criticising me. I send him my good wishes. The amendment, which differs from what Mr Wells and I discussed last week, could wreck the existing scheme. I do not believe that that was Jim Wells’s intention, and I do not believe that that should be the intention of the House.
If Members wish to table a further motion relating to NIE’s profits and how they might be applied for the public good, they should put it before the House, and we can discuss its merits. However, we should not wreck the current scheme just to make a political point about our concerns about NIE.
When the regulator gave evidence to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, he said that he was looking for a lead from the Assembly on the energy efficiency levy. In GB there is a similar levy which is about to be significantly increased from £1·80 to £4·80 in two stages. We should give the lead that Mr McIldoon has asked for. We should match the GB picture by increasing our levy from £2 to £5. We should pass the motion unamended and then look at further ways of improving the situation of the 170,000 households that still need our help.

Mr Donovan McClelland: One amendment to the motion has been selected and has been published in the Marshalled List.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Unfortunately Mr Jim Wells who was to propose the amendment is unable to be here. As most Members are aware, he was taken suddenly ill this morning. I am sure that the House will be glad to know that he is making good progress, though he is going to have some tests done. I am sure that everyone will join with me in sending our best wishes to him for a speedy recovery.

Mr Donovan McClelland: We convey the best wishes of the House to Mr Wells.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I also apologise that I was delayed and missed the first part of Mr Ford’s remarks.

Mr Danny Kennedy: The Member missed nothing.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am told that I did not miss anything terribly important. I was attending a meeting of the Finance and Personnel Committee meeting at which we were trying to wring more money out of the tight-fisted Finance Minister.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Did the Committee succeed?

Mr Nigel Dodds: We have not yet succeeded; we are going back for the second round shortly.
I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "poverty" and insert:
"by entering into negotiations with Northern Ireland Electricity to obtain additional funding equivalent to the amount which would be generated by the proposed increase in the energy efficiency levy to £5·00 per customer."
I listened carefully to the points made by the mover of the motion. Indeed, he succeeded in putting forward most of the arguments against his motion. He disposed of the arguments with varying degrees of success, although I do not feel he did so convincingly. All in the House will agree that fuel poverty is an extremely important issue. That is the first thing that must be said.
The Department for Social Development and the Housing Executive, as the home energy conservation authority, have a programme in place to tackle the issue of fuel poverty. We have debated this issue on previous occasions, and we are well aware of the fact that 170,000 households in the community suffer from fuel poverty. We are also aware that it has been estimated that upwards of 600 people each year are dying as a result. That is a deplorable situation. Therefore the issue of fuel poverty is crucial, and we must address it. It is simply intolerable that 600 people are dying each year in Northern Ireland from cold-related illnesses.
We, the consumers across the Province, are currently paying the highest prices for electricity anywhere in Europe. When NIE announced a few months ago that it was increasing electricity prices by about 9%, there was rightly outrage across the House in all quarters about the swingeing increases in electricity tariffs. Having already been subjected to high increases and already paying the highest prices in Europe, our consumers are being faced once again with a massive increase.
Some of the reasons behind our high electricity prices are undoubtedly to do with the way in which the electricity industry was sold off. There are problems with the generators’ long-term contracts. Various ways have been suggested in which that can be addressed. Consumers here are already paying high rates, and this morning the Minister of Finance and Personnel offered no relief on that score as once again rates are to go up by double the rate of inflation. Next year electricity prices are going up by three times the rate of inflation. Those issues must be borne in mind.
Time and again reference has been made to the fact that people who receive social security benefits can obtain relief. There are many people who do not fall into that category: those who make just enough money to not fall into any qualification for benefit. They are always hit hardest when it comes to increases.
It is right that we should be trying to increase the amount of money going into the programmes to deal with fuel poverty. However, there is concern across the House about going back to the customers and telling them that they should pay an extra 150%, — albeit phased in — in the energy efficiency levy, to cover the cost of putting more money into eradicating fuel poverty.
Is there not a case for encouraging the regulator to talk to Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE)? It may not be possible to require NIE to pay this money. If that is the case, it is something that we should be looking at. It is incumbent on us, as public representatives, to say that a company with the profits that NIE is making — over £90 million this year — should be asked to contribute towards this programme, in the light of the high prices that are already being charged to consumers and households in Northern Ireland. If it is not prepared to do that, then we should address the issues again.
To say that the onus will be put on the hard-pressed consumer to put up this amount of money is unfair. The revenue is not being raised from the appropriate section of the community. NIE has generated massive profits, and it has a responsibility to eradicate fuel poverty. That is not to say that the company has not done anything about this. It has worked with the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG) and others to try to improve the situation. However, to target consumers to raise this money is, as Mr Ford said, in effect putting another tax on consumers. It is unfair to go back to those consumers and ask them for the money to pay for these programmes. That takes the responsibility away from those who are better equipped to pay.
We could come to the House and say that it would be a good idea to increase pensions in Northern Ireland; that pensioners across the Province deserve more per person, per family, or per couple. Would it be acceptable for anyone in this House to stand up and agree, and levy an extra tax on pensioners to pay for it? That is effectively what we would be doing. "Pay a bit more and you will see the benefits. It will go back into your pockets another way." That is unfair, and it is not the right approach.
We should ask the regulator to go to NIE and see if there is a way in which this money can go into schemes to eradicate fuel poverty. We all agree with that, but not with taxing already hard-pressed households and families in Northern Ireland who are already paying the highest prices for electricity anywhere in Europe.

Mr David McClarty: I support the motion. I oppose the amendment on the grounds that Northern Ireland Electricity is unlikely to support any voluntary additional funding equivalent to the amount that would be generated by the proposed levy increase. NIE is a private company, and it would be unrealistic to expect it to set aside money towards the eradication of what is essentially a problem for Government.
Mr Wells and Mr Dodds have together tagged the levy increase and the additional voluntary funding by NIE. Therefore I cannot support the amendment. The proposed amendment sounds very good in theory, but it would be unrealistic in practice. It is better to get half a loaf as a consequence of the proposed motion than to have no bread, which would be the effect of the proposed amendment. The bottom line is that I support an increase in the levy, with no conditions attached.
Fuel poverty is one of Northern Ireland’s hidden disgraces. Most people are probably unaware that the problem even exists. We take for granted the warmth of our homes, without recognising that many thousands of elderly folk and families with a low income have to spend the winter months wrapped up in layers of clothing, and suffering the physical effects of damp and cold. How often do we assume that poverty is something that we see on the streets and that it does not exist for people who have a roof over their heads? That is not the case.
Poverty, particularly fuel poverty, is an all too frequent reality for over 170,000 households in Northern Ireland. It is a reality that must be addressed. Low income levels and high energy costs combine with limited access to energy-efficient fuels to create a cyclic cocktail of fuel poverty for far too many people in the Province. Those factors contribute to the proportionately higher levels of fuel poverty that exist here, by comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom.
The situation is far from satisfactory. The current energy efficiency levy, which is £2 per customer, raises £1·4 million per annum and is used to develop energy efficiency and fuel poverty strategies. To date, £3·4 million has been used in that way. Of that, £2·2 million, or 65%, has been directly targeted at fuel-poor customers. That is all to be commended, but it does not go far enough to eradicate the ingrained poverty trap that is experienced by so many families.
The time has come to explore the possibility of an increase in the levy, and I am sure that most warm people would support a small rise in it. Any additional revenue raised as a result of the levy increase must be efficiently targeted at helping the fuel poor. An increase in the levy to £5 per customer would raise an estimated total of £3·4 million per annum. I contend that the vast bulk of that capital should be directed at energy efficiency and financial support programmes aimed at those in greatest need. The tangible benefits of increasing the levy from £2 to £5 per customer would demonstrate the Executive’s commitment to the eradication of fuel poverty as outlined in the Programme for Government.
If the Executive are serious about the eradication of fuel poverty, they could go even further than merely stating their aim of intent. It would take approximately £50 million to eradicate fuel poverty in the Province. To increase the levy to £5 per customer would raise an additional £2 million towards this aim. It is worth remembering that at the proposed rate of return it will still take 25 years to stamp out fuel poverty in the Province.
The Executive, however, could help to eradicate fuel poverty much faster, by signalling their support for the setting aside of moneys specifically to tackle the problem. Rather than seek support from NIE as outlined in the amendment, the Executive could signal to the community its appreciation of the extent of the problem and its willingness to take tangible financial steps towards relieving the difficulty faced by so many in the community.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Has the Member not just made the most pertinent point in regard to the issue? If we pass to NIE the responsibility for financing the eradication of fuel poverty, we let the Executive off the hook. They would be able to wash their hands of the matter and say that the responsibility for financing rests with NIE.

Mr David McClarty: I agree with some of what Sammy Wilson said, but one cannot force a private company such as NIE to give money towards eradicating fuel poverty. The onus should be on the Executive to help eradicate fuel poverty.
I support the motion, because additional funding, if created, will augment and complement statutory funding and have a significant impact on the battle against fuel poverty. The onus is on the Assembly, and the Executive in particular, to help break the cycle of fuel poverty that so many households in Northern Ireland experience. The situation will get worse unless Members act now to deliver hope to those senior citizens and families who face another winter in the war to keep warm.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I too support the motion. It is unacceptable that there are old people and poor people in this country sitting with their coats on during the winter because they cannot afford to light their fires. We are not living in the Dark Ages; this is the twenty-first century. The Assembly must look at how it can eradicate the problem of fuel poverty. Guidelines state that people who have to spend more than 10% of their income on necessary fuel for heating, lighting or appliances suffer from fuel poverty. That includes many people in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind its high levels of unemployment.
I agree with some of what Mr Dodds said in moving the amendment. People in this country are already strapped for cash, and they are paying the highest energy prices anywhere in Europe. That is a legacy that we inherited from Mrs Thatcher, and it must be addressed.
Mr McClarty said that the Executive needed to look at this issue. I see that the Minister for Social Development is in the Chamber, and I thank him for his presence. I know that he shares Members’ concerns about fuel poverty and that he has taken steps through the Domestic Energy Efficiency Scheme (DEES) to try and assist with the problem.
Unlike Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland does not have any targets in place for reducing fuel poverty. The National Assembly for Wales is aiming to reduce fuel poverty in 15 years, and the Scottish Parliament is trying to do so within 10 years. The people of Northern Ireland need to know where they stand and what the Assembly is going to do for them.
There will always be pressures on finance, especially in the Department for Social Development. However, I urge the Minister to make the case for Executive programme funds to target this worthwhile issue. Fuel poverty affects people throughout Northern Ireland, regardless of their religion or background. The problem seems to be worse in rural areas, where higher numbers of people appear to be suffering from fuel poverty.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: We have heard the argument that one can tell the old-age pensioners that they will pay £5 more, but one cannot negotiate with a company that has somewhere in the region of £96 million in the kitty at the end of the year. Surely the Assembly should have the power to reason with that company and point that out to it. If it slaps us in the face and says "No", then the Assembly has legislative authority to go back to the company and do it.
Let nobody think that they can hide from this big issue. If a £5 energy efficiency levy is imposed on everyone, those who are just above the poverty line will have to pay it, and those below the poverty line will also have to pay it. Why put a levy on the people that need help?

Mr Danny O'Connor: There already is a levy. The precedent has been set; it is £2 at present. We are suggesting an increase of 6p a week, which would not buy one a slice of pan loaf.
We must consider how to deal with this matter. For every pound that is raised, approximately £10 is saved. If £2 million were raised to provide people with low-energy light bulbs, the savings to those people would be approximately £20 million. That would allow them greater flexibility to spend their money on food and on other essentials rather than being obliged to spend it on heating. People should not be forced to choose between heating and eating. An increase of 6p a week would give the most vulnerable a tenfold return as they could afford extra energy-efficient appliances, such as light bulbs.
It is only a drop in the ocean, and we are only tinkering at the edges. It must be mainstreamed. We spoke about targeting social need; who better to target than the most vulnerable? We must think of the savings to the Health Service. Mr McClarty said that there are 170,000 fuel-poor homes in Northern Ireland. How many people develop pneumonia, asthma, influenza and other stress-related illnesses because they live in cold, damp homes? Tackling fuel poverty could save the Health Service money, because fewer people would get sick.
I urge the Minister to reconsider a system that allows landlords to claim housing benefit for houses that are damp and unfit. Landlords should be obliged to repair houses before any housing benefit is paid. People can get a statutory notice from a district council served on a house that is damp or full of mould. They then approach the Department for Social Development with a begging bowl for a grant to subsidise what is in effect a business. People are entitled to a decent standard of living; no one should have to live in such conditions.
We must educate the most vulnerable in how to use their energy efficiently. Education is a great way forward. People have elaborate heating systems that they do not know how to use, so they are not getting maximum efficiency from them. Such programmes must be developed.
Yesterday Mr Empey said that he was committed to targeting social exclusion. The most vulnerable people in our society will benefit from what Mr Ford has proposed.
I accept that it is a stealth tax, but an extra 6p a week can generate benefits for some of our neediest people, and I welcome it. It does not, however, detract from the Executive’s responsibility in this area.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Everyone in the House will agree that this is a crisis, and we must approach the problem with a crisis attitude. Mr O’Connor spoke about sixpence, but to people living in poverty sixpence is a large sum of money. This £5 is added to the rate. Everyone paying for electricity in Northern Ireland is paying more than people do anywhere else in Europe. NIE is pulling in millions, yet it tells us to place the burden on the poor consumer. I do not accept that. People who have enough money would be quite happy to give £5 a year. However, there are people who do not have enough money, and I want to have those people eliminated from paying this charge. I was told that that would be impossible. The £5 taken from those poor people will be sore on them. If it is only sixpence per week, it would be peanuts to the people who bring in a profit of £96 million.
We are getting this the wrong way round. We cannot say to NIE that we want it to pay up, but as reasonable people we can state the problem in relation to this levy. We can say to NIE that with the gains it receives from its consumers it should do the honourable thing and tell us how much of a contribution it is going to make. That is a reasonable thing to do. If NIE says that it will give nothing, we will know the nature of the brute and who it is looking after — the people who have invested in its companies in order to receive higher dividends. NIE is not looking after the consumers. It would be immoral for NIE to take that attitude, and I do not think it will do so. As I understand it from the proposer of the motion, NIE has made some contribution to this situation. Why can we not ask NIE to make a greater contribution? Why should we not aim to have fuel poverty eliminated in five years’ time rather than 10 years’ time? The only way we can do that is to exert pressure on the organisation that has the money. And it has that money because higher rates are being charged in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in Europe.
The Executive and Sir Reg Empey cannot escape either; they should be putting their money where their mouth is. Sir Reg Empey said that he will target the needy, but instead the poorest people have to join this scheme and pay the tariff. It is a tax, and it is not morally defensible. The people of Northern Ireland would be outraged to think that instead of our going to NIE to ask for help, others want us to jump in and impose the levy immediately. I was told that if it were not done immediately, it would not be voted through. In conscience neither my Colleagues nor I could support this motion. We are not recommending that this scheme should stop. What we are saying is: go to the people who have the money and see what they can give us. If they do not give us the money, we will have to take other steps. Members have the power to do this. I was told that we would have to legislate. What is wrong with legislation? Are we not called here to legislate? That is not a problem. It will not take long to consult with NIE.
That can be carried out, we can look at the results, and we can then return to the outlook that NIE is prepared to make money from the people of Northern Ireland — both the poor and the rich — but that it is unprepared to help when there is a problem. I would like the problem to be solved in one year rather than in 10. However, we could at least halve the proposed time to five years; that would be a better proposition.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. Although I agree with the spirit of the amendment and the reasoning behind it — it is clear that NIE has made massive profits from consumers in the North of Ireland — the practical outcome of the amendment will be to hinder the creation of a levy and the proper eradication of fuel poverty. For that reason only, I cannot support the amendment. However, I hope that a similar motion will be tabled in the future.
People in the Chamber will recognise that my Colleagues in the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment are in the middle of an inquiry into energy and, in particular, into the higher price of electricity in the North of Ireland. An issue that arises frequently is the generation contracts that were negotiated at the time of privatisation in 1992 and 1993. Those contracts are largely responsible for the high electricity prices in the North of Ireland; they are the highest in Europe. The people who benefit most from high prices are the shareholders of NIE, most of whom do not even live in the North of Ireland.
At the time of privatisation, the British Treasury received twice the price per megawatt of generation capacity from the North of Ireland as it did from Britain. The power stations were sold for £352 million. The contracts are not competitive. Companies are paid an availability payment in addition to the full cost of the fuel that they use to generate electricity. The cost of generation is 60% of the final cost of electricity. That cost is passed on to the consumers in their fuel bills.
The costs of refurbishment programmes at power stations are also often passed on to the consumers. Ballylumford was sold to British Gas and operated by its subsidiary, Premier Power Ltd, on the condition that a pipeline from Scotland to the Six Counties be created and that the station be converted to gas with EU grant aid. The Ballylumford contract has been renegotiated, but the result of that is that the customers will have to pay for the new deal until the year 2012. AES Corporation, an American multinational company, owns Kilroot and Belfast West power stations. In 2000, AES made a net income worldwide of US$658 million.
It is clear to those examining the issue and to members of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee that the generation contracts will inhibit the introduction of full competition. There is a real risk that low-income consumers, who are unattractive to new companies entering the market, will be left to pay an increased share of the generation costs.
Although I support the motion, it represents only one part of the equation in tackling fuel poverty. In addition, the electricity regulator should be given full powers to regulate the generation companies, including ensuring full competition and the end of unfair contracts. Until those unfair contracts are renegotiated or done away with, we will not be able to tackle fuel poverty seriously.
However, the increased levy would be a first step and would go some way toward alleviating fuel poverty. While it proposes an increase of £5 per customer per year, which would raise a total of £3·4 million per annum, it is also expected to save customers £22·5 million per annum. That would be money well spent and would, in the long term, benefit electricity consumers.
If the motion is passed — and I sincerely hope that it will be — the system needs to operate in a fully transparent, open and accountable manner. We must ensure that every single penny of that £5 customer levy goes toward eradicating fuel poverty. Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Jane Morrice: I find myself falling between two stools in this debate. Standing between the DUP and the Alliance Party is not a very comfortable place to be — I am between a rock and a hard place. I have listened with a great deal of interest. I have had both the motion and the amendment in my head, and I wanted to hear the arguments on both sides and to be convinced of the right way. That is what is so valuable about debating in the Chamber. While I agree that there should be an increase in the levy, I do not agree that those in fuel poverty should have to pay an additional increase.
I was impressed by Mr Dodds’s and Dr Paisley’s arguments that the issue should be brought into the context of Northern Ireland. It is very difficult to ask consumers — industrial as well as private consumers — to pay more for their electricity. The rise may be only 6p per week, but that is 6p per week on top of the highest electricity prices in Europe, if not the world. It is a mountain that is perhaps too high to climb.
This must be looked at much more imaginatively. It has been argued that nobody can force Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) to act, as it is a privatised company, but we must look at how it has been done elsewhere. I understand, although I have no details on it, that a windfall tax on privatised utilities is in operation in England. When profits rise above a fixed level — [Interruption]. You say that it is as high as £96 million. Companies are taxed on that amount, and the tax then goes into the fuel poverty programmes. That would, of course, need new legislation, a stage that we have not yet reached. However, surely the Assembly could do something more imaginative to help those in fuel poverty without taxing them further.
It was said that 170,000 households were affected by fuel poverty, including pensioners and those on low incomes. Statistics have already been quoted about people who have died from the cold as a result of having to choose between heating and eating.
The point was made that people who endure fuel poverty are more likely to use coal than electricity for heating. Is that not the case? They pay an increased levy on electricity bills, but the price of coal, which they use to heat their homes, stays the same.

Mr Danny O'Connor: Will the Member accept that there is non-manual heating, usually in either ground-floor flats or small two-bedroom bungalows in which disabled or elderly people live? That is generally Economy 7, but it is definitely not economical.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank Mr O’Connor for making that point. Dr O’Hagan raised the issue of the increase. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has listened to the regulator, Douglas McIldoon, and his call for an increase in this levy. The Committee supports that, but it has major reservations. He said, for example, that it is proposed to ring-fence the increase at 80% for the fuel poor. That is not enough. If that is to happen it must be 100%. Guarantees must be given that not only 100% goes back to the fuel poor, but that somehow every single one of those 170,000 fuel-poor households benefits. At the moment I am not certain of that guarantee.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Will the Member not also keep in mind that that levy was very low when it came in, but it is now going up and up? How much will it rise? Will we have another rise next year? It is going up rapidly. It started at £1, and now it is going up to £5.

A Member: And £7·50 is the projected amount.

Ms Jane Morrice: That is a concern. It puts an added burden on the consumer. I underscore the point that 6p per week — an increase of £3 per year — may be very little for those in the House to contemplate, but if we suffered as the fuel poor suffer, especially in winter, such an added burden would possibly be too much to bear.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Members, we have completed the first round of speakers from each political party, and because of the numbers who wish to speak I must, unfortunately, ask you to limit your speeches to five minutes.

Mr Fred Cobain: I am not going to get into arguments about NIE. The moral responsibility to tackle fuel poverty lies in the Chamber, not elsewhere. Everyone knows, and the points have been made, that we are dealing with the most deprived people in society. The Minister of Finance and Personnel said this morning that most of his Budgets are directed towards those who live in need. The fuel poor are such people.
Six hundred people die each year of cold-related illnesses. It is a moral responsibility for the House and the Executive to cure that problem. We may get assistance from NIE, which is fine, but the moral responsibility lies with the Assembly and with the Executive. Between £40 million and £50 million is needed to eradicate the situation. Those are capital programmes, not revenue programmes, and once spent they do not need to be spent again. That cannot be done overnight; it will take five or six years.
The Minister has introduced the domestic energy efficiency scheme, which has been very important. However, the number of people who can apply for that is limited, as he is restricted by the amount of money the Executive have given him.
If we really want to eradicate fuel poverty we need to do it through an Executive programme. There are no short cuts. NIE might get £1 million or £2 million per year. That would make some difference, but not much. If the House is really intent on removing fuel poverty, it can be achieved in the Budget. We can insist that, in the next six or seven years, the Executive programme funds provide an additional £4 million or £5 million per year for the Minister, and in five or six years from now fuel poverty will be eradicated. It is as simple as that.
Every Member has said how moved he or she is by people who endure fuel poverty before going on to appeal to a private company to eradicate it. However, responsibility does not lie with the private sector or the public one. The House should decide, and make it known, that Members will no longer tolerate people having to endure fuel poverty. We should instruct the person responsible to bring forward a scheme to allow the Minister for Social Development to have the necessary money to eradicate it. It will not be eradicated next year or the year after that; it will take five or six years because of the number of people involved. That should be the end of the argument.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I am glad that the fuel poverty issue has been brought to the House. What must strike us is that we are divided only on how to eradicate it. Members agree that something must be done. It is conceivable that had the mover of the amendment joined with the mover of the substantive motion, both subjects could have been debated simultaneously. That would have been in the best interests of all the people whom we want to help.
The SDLP waxed and waned about the best approach to adopt. As our social development spokesperson said, we came down in support of the motion. That was partly because of the structure of the efficiency levy. We realised that overriding the levy as a way to raise funds to combat fuel poverty might damage the mechanism. We must be conscious of that. If we ignore or avoid that mechanism, we could damage its future use.
Ian Paisley referred to a second concern of the SDLP. He wondered why we do not ask NIE for more money. The motion asks the regulator to move on that. It is his job to approach NIE to ask for more money and for a reasonable level of increases in people’s bills. He has been doing that with some success for a while. We should encourage him.
The SDLP feels that it should support the substantive motion because it will provide us with a means to solve the fuel poverty problem. Some people said that the levy is rising — the phrase used was "going up and up". That is inaccurate; there have been only two increases. However, if the levy is increasing, it is because it needs to address the increasing problem of fuel poverty. That problem is not disappearing, so we must address it. The levy is increasing to help those people in the most need. One cannot have it both ways. People cannot be asked to contribute in order to cure the problem. The problem must be tackled, and money must be spent on it.
It is important for us to be sure that any extra funds that are raised go directly to those who need them. The SDLP is concerned about whether the real fuel poor have been identified.
Particular attention is, by necessity, paid to pensioners, who are at risk because of health problems and a lack of funds. However, why is no provision made for disabled people, who are often housebound and reliant on benefits? What about single parents, large families and, in some cases, students? A broadly accepted definition of fuel poverty is the need to spend 10% of one’s disposable income on fuel costs. Many people, however, must choose between paying for food and heat. People often choose heat. That is why there are vulnerable people who get sick, and that is the reason for the figures that we have heard today.
Those with greater heating needs — those who spend more time at home — are most at risk. Ironically, those who are claiming benefits, are disabled or are in receipt of pensions are the people who receive bigger bills. Those people have the lowest disposable incomes. That creates the fuel poverty trap, which we must address.

Mr Mark Robinson: I would like to begin by saying that I welcome the fact that the widespread problem of fuel poverty is being addressed, but I have great difficulty with the charge, which will once again fall on the purse of the customer. The levy currently stands at £2 per customer, with National Energy Action (NEA) now advocating an increase of 150%, which would raise the levy to £5 per customer, in the hope that £3·4million can be raised for energy efficiency and the eventual eradication of fuel poverty.
My difficulty stems from the fact that, once again, the extra charge will fall on the customer. Why should the customer pay for the scheme, when NIE’s profits for the year 1999-2000 were £96·1 million? What is the problem with diverting £3·4 million from this profit margin to eradicate fuel poverty? Would it make a great difference to reduce the profit margin to £92·7 million from £96·1 million? It appears that the profits are bypassing the customer and being directed, once again, into the pockets of the so-called fat cats.
The main difficulty is that the market for gas and electricity in Northern Ireland is relatively small, which means that NIE does not have any direct competition. That has led to high charges. I must point out that Northern Ireland has higher levels of fuel poverty than mainland Britain. NIE continues to pass any extra costs on to the customer, which contradicts its aim to reduce fuel prices in Northern Ireland. NIE has supposedly been working hard over the past four years to reduce electricity prices in Northern Ireland, yet here we stand in 2001, debating an increase in the customer levy.
The most vulnerable in our society are the people who would be classified as the fuel poor. Those who fall into this category are lone parents, the unemployed, Housing Executive tenants, low-income families and the elderly. It is hard to believe that there are over 170,000 households that suffer from fuel poverty in Northern Ireland. That is why I feel that it is of extreme importance to be absolutely sure that the cost does not fall on every NIE customer, regardless of status. The system must not only be fair and inclusive, but must also be seen to be fair and inclusive, with the most needy as the beneficiaries. It is, therefore, important that those who would be classified as the fuel poor will incur no extra cost. Therefore, I state that I would fully support any scheme that aims to tackle fuel poverty, as long as those who are considered to be the fuel poor do not pay the highest price.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún seo. I commend the motion. It prescribes a measure that can contribute to the eradication of fuel poverty. Many Members have said that fuel poverty effects approximately 170,000 households in the Six Counties. It is a particular problem in rural areas, where there are high levels of unfit housing, properties are widespread and isolated, and dwellings tend to be larger and mostly in the private- rented or owner-occupied sectors.
I welcome the proposal to create an extra £3·6 million, and it should be created as a matter of urgency. Many Members have reminded the Executive of their responsibility — and that responsibility is additional to, not in place of, the Executive’s normal responsibilities.
A partial solution has been suggested, which we should embrace. It requires political support and will. I agree that the additional revenue generated must be directed towards the fuel poor. Ultimately, it is a matter of people’s health and of improving the quality of their lives — not least those who are most vulnerable, needy and disadvantaged. It is a matter of saving people from ill health, misery, cold and, in many cases, death.
I will not speak for much longer. As Mr ONeill said, the debate has been constructive. I welcome the unusual engagement of the DUP — its contribution has also been constructive.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the opportunity to engage in this debate on energy, as the issue has been a bee in my bonnet for some time. There is so much more to the issue, and we are dipping — in an almost one-dimensional fashion — into a massive issue for the entire community; so much so that it cuts across all Departments, although the main responsibility lies with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
At the core of the motion are some serious facts that we often ignore. Brief mention has been made of the fact that electricity prices are much too high and that those prices are being driven by a rip-off. As somebody once said, Dick Turpin wore a mask. The rip-off of 1992 was much more effective than anything that Dick Turpin ever did. The price of electricity in Northern Ireland was effectively doubled. Contracts were put in place that allowed the price of electricity to be doubled for 20 years so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could double what he charged those who were buying out the generating stations. That ensured a good return for the Chancellor and solid, guaranteed profits for the power station owners and shareholders.
Ultimately, it sold all electricity users in Northern Ireland — from the very poor to the very wealthy — into a 20-year bondage that is extremely difficult to escape from. However, we must escape from it, and there is an onus on the Assembly, the Executive, the Departments and the Government to do everything in their power to break the cartel and free us from bondage.
Everything in relation to energy in Northern Ireland flows from those contracts. The prices of other energy sources are pulled up or down — and in this case pulled up high — by those contracts. Due to the history of the Northern Ireland Electricity Board — subsequently NIE and now Viridian — our energy market is, by and large, supply-driven, and little or no consideration is given to the consumers. By consumers, I mean everyone from the big industrial user down to the householders who cannot afford to heat their homes.
There is absolutely no motivation within that plethora of energy policy to cut energy use, to improve conservation efforts, or to develop any renewable or alternative sources. The main thrust of our energy policy is to ensure that the generators get rid of as much electricity as possible and charge as much as possible for it. NIE then comes in, distributes the electricity and works that system. The more electricity NIE can pump through its system, the more money it gets. Therefore, there is an aversion to conservation, saving energy, and discovering alternative sources of energy.
The cost of electricity generation has fallen considerably over the past 10 years because of greater efficiencies in generation costs. However, the benefits all go towards the bottom line — the profits of the company or companies involved. I received a letter today from an industrial user who complained that the price of electricity has gone up by 31% in the past 14 months. The prices compared very unfavourably to those in England and Scotland.
Another serious consideration for me, which I do not believe has been touched on already, is that householders cannot afford to keep their homes warm, and we have every right to emphasise that fact. The big industrial users often have enough muscle and clout to ensure special deals — and I do not blame them for using that clout. As the market starts to become deregulated they will have the option to work for a cheaper price within their contracts. However, the net effect will be that the poor, the dispossessed and those who cannot afford to heat their homes will make up for that subsidy. If the large electricity users get a price cut, the price for the small users will rise by 5% or by 10%.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Will the Member draw his remarks to a conclusion.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I am sorry. I thought I had more time. There are 170,000 households that endure fuel poverty — 28% of the people. I could run through many more issues but I will leave it there. We need to take the issue seriously. We have made a start on it today.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the amendment. The DUP takes the matter very seriously; that is why we proposed the amendment. Many constituents have spoken to me about the issue, and they have expressed concern that the energy efficiency levy has been raised to £5. Although there may not be much difference in the opinions of people in the Chamber as regards the motion and the amendment, it really comes down to who should pay for the increased levy.
The people who will suffer will be those who pay the tax increase. I call it that because many of us feel that it is a tax disguised as a levy. Senior citizens can least afford to pay it, and they have come to our advice centres to tell us that. They have stated that they are unhappy with the levy, not because it is a big charge in itself, but because, over the year, it cumulatively takes away their income. Our responsibility as elected representatives is to ensure that senior citizens and those who fall into the category of enduring fuel poverty can pay. It is unfair that they should be asked to pay that levy.
Everyone agrees that to try to eradicate fuel poverty is a worthwhile goal, and that is what we are aiming for. All of the parties are committed to it. We want to see fuel poverty being eradicated. Our amendment provides a method to try to address the levy charge. It is unfair that those who can least afford to pay the levy should shoulder a portion of costs, and that is why we have put forward the amendment. We have the highest electricity charges in the UK — indeed, in Europe. To insist that the consumers, our constituents, should have to pay that levy is unfair; many would say that it is immoral.
NIE’s profits are already over £90 million and rising. Do Members not agree that a portion of NIE profits could, and should, be used to reduce the energy efficiency levy? Last week, when I spoke to NIE officials about the matter, they insisted that, although their proposed increase is £5, they could not guarantee that the charge would not end up being equal to the current charge on the mainland, which is £7·50.
Is that the thin edge of the wedge? Will the increase be £7·50 next year? Where will the charges end? Should not the party that can afford to cover the increase in costs take responsibility for it? The increase, which started at £1 and could end up at £7·50, is just the latest chapter. We are all committed to the eradication of fuel poverty and to helping those who need it most.
The Housing Executive has already introduced a policy to help its tenants, and that programme is well advanced. Mr Cobain suggested that the Assembly and the Executive make a contribution. That contribution, combined with the existing levy charge and a voluntary contribution from NIE, would yield sufficient money to address the issue. It is only fair that NIE should contribute some of its large profit to eradicate fuel poverty.
NIE has received exorbitant profits, which have been paid for by the consumer, including those in the grip of fuel poverty. The levy to address fuel poverty, as proposed in the motion, will apply only to those who can least afford to pay it. The amended motion would provide a means to address the issue to everyone’s satisfaction. We all feel that something must be done. Let the financial responsibility fall on the shoulders of those who can afford it. Those who can least afford to pay should not be charged. The DUP amendment would protect those who cannot afford to pay the levy. I support the amendment.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the increase in the levy and the benefits that it could achieve. However, there needs to be greater transparency in the administration of the levy; we should be able to see how the proceeds from it are spent. The funds that are raised should be used to lift people out of fuel poverty rather than deliver piecemeal measures that merely reduce the problem slightly.
In tandem with the Programme for Government, our first and foremost task is to end poverty, especially fuel poverty. We must ensure that the cold, misery and ill health experienced in many households during the long, cold winter months are ended for good.
NEA is a charity that campaigns for solutions to fuel poverty, including heating and insulation problems that are suffered by people on low incomes. With the support of the Energy Saving Trust, the NEA seeks support from elected representatives to help bring about an increase in energy levels and to create more funds to tackle fuel poverty.
Over 170,000 households in Northern Ireland suffer from fuel poverty. Lower income levels, combined with a lack of access to energy efficient fuel and the high cost of energy, contribute to higher levels of fuel poverty than in Britain. Fuel poverty damages houses, causing dampness, condensation, mould growth, disrepair and unfit conditions. Fuel poverty exists in parts of Belfast, but, for the large part, rural areas experience it. It also damages health, causing asthma, heart disease, pneumonia, influenza and stress, and it leads to more than 700 deaths every year.
Fuel-poor and energy-inefficient dwellings release harmful emissions that damage the environment. To increase the levy to £5 will provide an annual carbon saving of 81,000 tonnes and energy savings of 32 gigawatt hours, which in turn will improve the environment. I support the motion.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I too support the motion. Fuel poverty could be defined as the inability to afford sufficient heating for a home. The reasons for that vary, but ultimately those who cannot afford sufficient heating are not helped by information campaigns. They simply cannot afford the cost. An income-based analysis can also mislead, because people who work and with limited income may be forced to continue to pay for fuel at the expense of other necessities, such as food and clothing.
The fuel poverty trap contains those who spend more than 10% of their disposable income on fuel costs. Because domestic electricity prices offer little or no elasticity, it logically follows that the less income a person has, the more he will spend proportionally on fuel. The most recent changes, such as the abolition of standing charges, offer nothing to those who have little or no choice in their fuel consumption, while central subsidy to NIE has benefited industrial users. In addition, those social groups that are most at risk of fuel poverty are those who spend more time in the home — those with higher needs such as people with young families, pensioners and the disabled.
We also have property-based analyses, which can help to determine the causes of inefficient fuel use. There are sets of funding available for energy efficient measures, such as insulation, but that falls far short of what is really needed if we are going to approach the problem seriously.
Regional climate variations are not currently considered when fuel needs are being addressed. The seven-day rule which triggers retrospective payments to select recipients of income support is viewed by many as a deliberate attempt to reduce such payments. It is reasonable to expect that people at this stage in Northern Ireland’s socio-economic development should not have to deny themselves sufficient heat. It has been stated already that there are 600 deaths a year due to hypothermia, and many people’s medical problems are exacerbated by a lack of heating in their homes. It has also been said that more than 170,000 households endure fuel poverty in Northern Ireland. Lower income levels combined with a lack of access to energy-efficient fuels and high energy costs contribute proportionally to higher levels of fuel poverty than in Britain.
The Northern Ireland Executive have committed themselves to the eradication of fuel poverty. This morning the Minister of Finance and Personnel said in his draft Budget statement that
"specific actions will be taken to reduce fuel poverty".
The energy efficiency levy is currently £2 per consumer. That raises £1·4 million per year. The amendment suggests that we approach NIE and ask it to make funding available. My party, in most instances, would say that that is the right way to advance. In this instance, we accept that NIE has not shown much commitment over the years. It did have an energy needs programme a few years ago, and, at that stage, it did improve energy for pig farmers, community buildings and some pensioners. That was a good first step, but it was not built on. If it had been, we would not be here considering increasing the levy from £2 to £5 per customer.
The proposed increase would raise a total of £3·6 million per year and earn £2 million each year to help with energy efficiency and fuel poverty. It is proposed to direct that increase to the fuel poor — that is 80% — to help to meet Government commitments in the Programme for Government and the UK fuel poverty strategy. Mick Murphy quoted from the NEA. The Energy Saving Trust also supports the increased levy, and because of that we support it.
NEA in Northern Ireland has said that it supports the increase of the levy on the basis that it would create
"a source of significant additional funding to complement statutory funding for fuel poverty programmes. The levy can play a significant role in the eradication of fuel poverty, ensuring that the cold, misery and ill health experienced by so many vulnerable households during colder months is ended for good."
It is for such reasons that I support the motion.

Rev William McCrea: I thank Mr Ford for raising the subject in the House, and I accept his sincerity in doing so. None the less, I support the amendment, which proposes a better way forward, although I think that there is a better way forward still.
There is a fuel poverty crisis, and many people are in tremendous need, which no one denies. We must resolve the crisis urgently, which no one denies either. Moral responsibility does not lie with the ordinary consumer. Unfortunately, the change proposed in the motion would place a moral responsibility on the ordinary consumer, who already faces exorbitant electricity costs.
Some Members may not have been in the Chamber this morning when the Minister of Finance and Personnel spoke. This is the second tax increase to be discussed today. In the Minister’s presentation of the draft Budget, he said that £2 million had been withdrawn from councils. To make up that £2 million, people will have to pay higher rates. That was slipped in before Members realised that it was being done.
Higher taxes have already been levied in the draft Budget. The extra money that we are discussing now is on top of the other rise that we heard about earlier, which will affect 16 of the weakest councils. Several Members sit on those councils, and they will soon get a wake-up call. It is not just a matter of a few pence a week; the tax comes on top of the other tax that has already been slipped in.
Moral responsibility does not rest with the ordinary consumer, nor is it necessarily the responsibility of NIE, although NIE is in a better position to pay and has the necessary profits to do so. Where does the responsibility lie? It lies with the Assembly, not with the others on whom we are trying to put it. We say piously that we are trying to act in everyone’s best interests, but the best solution could be a tripartite one, involving customers, NIE — if it wants to prove its good faith in the matter — and the Assembly. The Assembly should put its money where its mouth is. If we achieve genuine unanimity on the matter, we can table an amendment to the draft Budget.
It will be interesting to see how sincere everyone is on this important issue. Do we impose a further tax on the ordinary consumer, many of whom are caught in the poverty trap?
There is a poverty trap. Those who are above the level of income regarded as the poverty line have to pay for everything. Those are the people who will be paying again. I suggest to the Assembly that a wake-up call is needed to the fact that we have already heard recommendations for a tax to be slipped in. Here now is a second tax. That is not the way forward. Let us have good faith from everyone. Let us have a tripartite approach, so that we can see it done in five years’ time rather than in 10.

Mr Nigel Dodds: As almost everyone has indicated, this has been a useful and constructive debate. All the contributions have dealt with the subject in a relevant way. As Dr McCrea has mentioned, we all agree on the objectives. There is no difference among us in our desire to deal with the difficult problem of fuel poverty.
The Minister for Social Development has sat through most, if not all, of the debate, and he will have taken that on board. He has programmes in place, which include a new domestic energy efficiency scheme, to try to push forward the eradication of fuel poverty in Northern Ireland. We all agree that the more money that can be put into that scheme the better.
Ms Morrice summed up the problem when she highlighted that we are asking the fuel poor to pay for the increase. Some people have talked about a figure of 6p per week. I have looked through a press release from NIE from last January on the subject of the 9% increase in electricity prices. A favourite trick, when you want to disguise the magnitude of an increase, is to bring it down to what is described as "the cost of a newspaper". NIE put the price rise for a typical customer at about 60p per week, saying that all the customer was being asked to pay was the price of a newspaper per day. However, that amounts to £182·50 a year. When you put everything together, all those pence per day add up to a substantial amount of money.
Dr McCrea has already referred to today’s announcement of a 7% increase in the rates, and now we are back looking for more from Northern Ireland’s consumers, householders and families. Dr Paisley mentioned that that levy has increased substantially. Only two years ago the levy stood at £1. It was then proposed in 1999 that it should rise to £1·50 and then to £2 in the 2000-01 financial year. We are now being told that it should increase this year by another 150% .
Let us get this into perspective. The levy has increased in two to three years by 500%. Where will it end? It is a handy little device to extract money to pay for things. We will deal with the issue that was rightly highlighted in the previous speech, and by Mr Cobain, about where the real responsibility lies. It is a useful device to extract money to pay for schemes that are rightly the Executive’s responsibility.
We have already seen how this has been massively exploited. Nobody disagrees with the objectives to which the money is put; on this occasion it is the method by which the money is being raised, to which we object.
A point was raised about the money being spent on fuel poverty programmes. In an NIE press release dated 25 September, rushed out today, we are told that 80% of the money raised through the levy is spent on fuel poverty programmes and that the remaining 20% is spent on schemes for business and pump-priming new energy efficiency initiatives.
It may have been Ms Morrice who asked why it should not all go towards fuel poverty programmes. We now find that 20% is being spent on schemes for business.
Not all businesses are making rich pickings, but a few are making a profit. However, the Assembly is told that 20% of the money that has been raised through the energy efficiency levy is going to business schemes. That must be addressed.
I am amazed at some of the contributions from Members who claim to be of a social democratic disposition — and I do not mean the SDLP. I am talking about Members who generally take a left-of-centre or socialist viewpoint — Members who would usually be the first on their feet to decry anything that went against the socialist principles.
Members are not only concerned with the objectives of the expenditure, they are concerned about how money is raised. The energy efficiency levy is a flat-rate tax on everybody. It is not progressive taxation; it is regressive taxation. The great argument against the poll tax, for instance, was that it would bear harvest from those least able to pay it. That is what Members are being asked to approve. The energy efficiency levy applies to the richest and the poorest people in Northern Ireland. They pay the same. How can anyone who claims to have socialist or social democratic principles agree with that? How can they go into the Lobby to vote for that?

Rev William McCrea: We will soon see.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Members will see whether or not they are prepared to do that. For reasons of fairness and social equality the payment of the levy should be based on a consumer’s means. However, Members are asking the fuel poor to contribute the same as the best-off in Northern Ireland, which is wrong.
The Assembly should ask NIE what it can do to help eradicate fuel poverty. One Member from the SDLP said that there was no point in asking NIE for assistance because it had not done much for consumers. That is an argument for going back to NIE and trying again. The Assembly should put pressure on NIE; it should not give up and say "They’ll not do anything, so let’s put the burden on the hard-pressed consumers and charge them all, no matter whether they can pay or not."
However, as was previously stated, responsibility for this matter lies with the Executive. When we discuss the Budget, Members will be able to table amendments to it. Then we will see whether Members are prepared to look at ways to amend the Budget to deal with the necessary expenditure. In advance of that, however, the House is faced with a proposal to levy the consumers — the customers, the families of Northern Ireland — at the same rate regardless of their ability to pay. The House should resist that proposal.
I mentioned the increase in the pension. Is someone seriously suggesting that one way to prevent the shortfall in housing budgets, which was raised this morning, is to levy the tenants an extra 10p per week to pay for more efficient maintenance programmes from which all tenants would benefit? Would any Member stand in the Chamber and seriously suggest that that is the proper approach to take?
The proper approach is to put it up to the Executive. That is right, and when we come to the Budget, that is something that Members will address. Should the burden be placed on consumers, or should NIE be asked to fulfil its responsibilities and be pressurised into making a contribution? That is the question before the House, and if we fail, it will be dealt with in the Budget. We may well fail.
We know that we cannot force NIE to make a contribution: it is a private company. However, it is doing pretty well because of, as a number of Members have stated, the way in which it got its hands on the industry. Effectively, the Northern Ireland taxpayers were robbed.
We have had a good debate that has dealt with the issues. It is unfair and morally wrong to impose a flat-rate tax on the people who are least able to pay. Let us hesitate before we do that, and let us approach NIE. We will, of course, address the issue when we come to the Budget.

Mr David Ford: I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. It is a novel experience to wind up a debate in which there was to be significant disagreement about an amendment substance. The content of almost every speech has been the same, and there has been a unanimous feeling of concern for those people who are least well off in society. Many suggestions have been made as to how to provide the best method of support for them. The problem is that we disagree as to what the best method is. Mr ONeill was first to say that we clearly agree on the ends but disagree on the means.
A huge range of opinions have been voiced about how we should deal with the issue. We started off with a blunt statement from Mr McClarty, who was the first to ask whether NIE would be prepared to pay. That is the crux of the matter.
We had a number of contributions from members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Dr O’Hagan, Dr McDonnell and Ms Morrice raised issues regarding the ongoing inquiry and the total solution to the problems in that area.
Dr O’Hagan said the motion was one part of the equation; I do not suggest that it forms the entire equation. The motion, as it stands, is a large part of what we want.
In an interesting exchange with Dr Paisley, Mr O’Connor highlighted the fact that for every £1 the pensioner pays £10 is returned in benefits. He is wrong. The tax is levied at a flat rate. However, the benefits are paid disproportionately — they go to those who are most in need. The tax is not regressive in the way that the poll tax was. With the poll tax, everyone paid the same flat rate, and there were variable benefits. On this occasion the benefits are clearly targeted at those most in need. Therefore, the overall package of benefits is in the ratio of 9:1 or 10:1, but the ratio, as regards benefits for those who are most in need, is significantly better. That is why much of what has been said in support of the amendment falls down. The benefits are paid disproportionately.
Mr ONeill and Mick Murphy asked whether we were really identifying the fuel poor. In my opening statement I said that we need to work to improve the scheme and ensure that there is proper openness and accountability. There is willingness on behalf of those who work under the existing levy to ensure that is the case.
When we come to consider the amendment it seems to me that we are faced with a variety of questions that centre on a number of themes. Dr Paisley asked what is wrong with legislation. Mark Robinson asked where the problem lay in directing money from NIE to the scheme. The answer is that that depends on legislation, and, as we know, that that takes time. We have not established a record for speedy legislation in the House. I understand that we shall only have one day of business next week. There does not seem to be much business coming from the Executive. Perhaps we will see some improvement in coming weeks, and more business will come forward.
If we wait for primary legislation to solve the problem, we need to look at what we shall do during the two, three or four years before Ministers get round to producing such legislation.
I agree entirely with Dr McCrea on one point: that the best solution would be tripartite. We should look at making use of the existing levy, as well as a contribution from NIE and action by the Executive and by Ministers in relation to how the Budget is put to the House and voted on. What is the balance, and what can be done quickly?
Mr Dodds started off by saying that I had presented the case against my motion very fairly and knocked down most of the substantive points. I return the compliment by saying that both of us have understood the other’s position but have not agreed as to where we will reach that point. We all know what the social objectives are; they have been emphasised.
Those who support the amendment talk about the costs and compare the levy to the increased charges paid by customers to NIE, which, those Members say, inflate its coffers. The levy is not going to the coffers of NIE. Mr Shannon was wrong when he said that the increase was an NIE increase. It is not; it is the increase of Douglas McIldoon, the regulator. Although it is collected by NIE, it is not NIE’s responsibility. We should give NIE neither the credit nor the blame.
The levy in Great Britain will shortly rise to £3·60 and then to £4·80 — the £7·50 figure is not in the offing, either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland at the present time.
I have outlined the benefits, which will work out at nine or 10 times the expenditure. What money raised by general taxation as a result of the action of the Assembly ever produces a nine- or 10-times benefit, or even more than that, for those most in need?
We have other options, such as Ms Morrice’s suggestion of a windfall tax or some form of levy on, or voluntary contribution from, NIE. On the day that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Industry presents a Bill to impose that levy I shall be happy to read it, but there is no sign of that, and it is not contained in the Programme for Government. We should accept that that will not arrive in the timescale that we need this year.
We shall see what further amendments may be made to Executive funding by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. I am not holding my breath to see a significant and major change to the Budget. That is why we need to work on the basis of the levy. That is what is available, and we can act on it now, at the same time as other matters are progressing.
My concern is that the amendment as it is couched will not achieve our aim. Had the amendment proposed to add more or less the words "to put pressure on NIE" to the end of the motion, we could have unanimously agreed. However, the wording of the amendment, as an alternative and not an addition, could potentially damage the existing levy system, whereas the motion reinforces the levy system and allows the option for further action. It affords Members the opportunity to bring forward whatever further proposals they wish and it encourages what is clearly the will of the House: to put further pressure on NIE. It also allows the possibility of legislation.
The Assembly has been asked by Mr McIldoon to give a lead to the entire community on the levy. We can only do that by supporting the motion unamended, which I urge the House to do.
Question put
The Assembly divided: Ayes 23; Noes 31
Ayes
Mr Agnew, Mr Armstrong, Mr Berry, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr Kennedy, Mr Leslie, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mr M Robinson, Mr Shannon, Mr Watson, Mr Weir.
Noes
Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mrs E Bell, Dr Birnie, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mr Cobain, Mrs Courtney, Mr Davis, Mr A Doherty, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Dr Hendron, Mr Maginness, Mr Maskey, Mr McCarthy, Mr McClarty, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McFarland, Mr McGrady, Mr McNamee, Mr M Murphy, Mr Neeson, Mrs Nelis, Mr O’Connor, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Mr Tierney, Mr Trimble.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 31; Noes 23
Ayes
Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mrs E Bell, Dr Birnie, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mr Cobain, Mrs Courtney, Mr Davis, Mr A Doherty, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mr Haughey, Dr Hendron, Mr Maskey, Mr McCarthy, Mr McClarty, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McFarland, Mr McGrady, Mr McNamee, Mr M Murphy, Mr Neeson, Mrs Nelis, Mr O’Connor, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Mr Tierney, Mr Trimble.
Noes
Mr Agnew, Mr Armstrong, Mr Berry, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr Kennedy, Mr Leslie, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mr M Robinson, Mr Shannon, Mr Watson, Mr Weir.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly encourages the Regulator General for Electricity and Gas to contribute to the eradication of fuel poverty by increasing the energy efficiency levy to £5·00 per customer, creating £3·6 million to tackle fuel poverty.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn — [Mr Deputy Speaker]

Traffic Demands in North-East Newry

Mr Donovan McClelland: Members leaving the Chamber should do so quietly, so that we can proceed.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Mr P J Bradley: I welcome the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Minister for Regional Development the ongoing traffic congestion on the northern periphery of Newry and the inevitably worsening situation as the development of the area continues. I welcome the Minister’s presence in the Chamber to listen to the concerns that I will raise on behalf of the residents of the area and the thousands of road users who commute daily through this part of Newry, and I thank him for his attendance.
The traffic chaos in the area is due to a lack of forward planning. My earliest memory of the Drumcashlone/ Carneyhaugh district is one of cattle grazing on the pasture lands that lay on both sides of the main Rathfriland to Newry road just outside Newry. At that time, there were about 20 detached dwellings on Rathfriland Road and Upper Damolly Road. Similarly, there were no more than 20 homes on Ashgrove Road. The infrastructure serving those properties and the then volume of through traffic was comprised of three through routes — Rathfriland Road, Upper Damolly Road and Ashgrove Road. Changes gradually came about as the area began to expand and the demand for housing increased. Initially the change was slow, but it took off when the Newry and Mourne area plan 1984-99 came into being.
In order to present a true picture of the ongoing developments, I will detail the number of dwellings in each of the developments that make up the area in question. There are 85 in Annsville, 65 in Ardfreelin, 35 in Ashbrook Mews, 26 in Ashfield Avenue, 46 in Ashgrove Park, 52 in Ashgrove Road, 37 in Beechmount Park, 15 in Castleowen, 19 in Cedar Grove, 60 in Cherrywood Grove, 77 in Chestnut Grove, 35 in Cloverdale, 33 in Drumcashel Villas, 32 in Elmwood Park, 31 in Kenard Villas, 33 in Upper Damolly Road, 43 in Willow Grove, and 27 in the section of Rathfriland Road that covers the area. Also, a building site that could accommodate an additional 150 dwellings is currently being cleared on land that fronts on to Upper Damolly Road.
Added to those figures is the comparatively new Rathfriland Road Industrial Estate. That development includes the premises of one of the largest timber merchants in the area and the busy Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency centre. There are also haulage yards, a caravan sales compound, small factories, purpose-built office accommodation, retail outlets and a major filling station/supermarket nearby — all of which front on to Rathfriland Road.
There are now three large schools in the Ashgrove area: Newry High School with approximately 550 pupils; Sacred Heart Grammar School with 880 pupils; and St Ronan’s Primary School with 408 pupils. There are proposals for another large, 800-pupil grammar school to be built in the area. It is not necessary for me to describe the traffic mayhem caused each day in this confined area as 2,000 or more children, the residents of over 700 dwellings and thousands of motorists go — or attempt to go — about their daily business.
As I said at the beginning, I attribute this traffic confusion in the area to the lack of forward planning. The Minister, interested parties and those in officialdom will best understand what I mean when I tell them that not one metre of new through road has been provided in the area for over a century. The same through roads that I mentioned earlier remain the only ones in this densely populated area.
To say that this is unacceptable is to put it mildly. I therefore call on the Minister for Regional Development to immediately implement a feasibility study of the area, with a view to not only resolving the current problems but to considering the future needs of the area as it continues to develop. In anticipation that my request will not fall upon deaf ears, I, as a mere layman — but one with an in-depth local knowledge — propose to the Minister that the requested study should start by investigating the ring road potential of the Damolly Road. If a modern, improved route could be facilitated to link the Ashtree roundabout on the Rathfriland Road with the main Newry to Belfast dual carriageway, and an improved Upper Damolly Road brought to meet the suggested ring road, then many of the short-term problems would at least be lessened.
I call for the feasibility study in the full knowledge that the Minister is inundated with requests for new roads in and around every town and village. However, I am confident that the outcome of a Newry-north study would result in the Minister recognising that he has a clear-cut obligation to deal with the ever-growing traffic problems in the area.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am pleased to add my support to Mr Bradley’s call for an urgent study to be carried out by the Minister’s Department. I too welcome the Minister’s attendance today — his presence shows he attaches some importance to the issue.
I am aware, from my constituents in that area, of the chaos that road users experience at the junctions on the Rathfriland Road, Upper Damolly Road and Ashgrove Road, particularly at peak times. Those roads are important routes into, and through, Newry for many commuters. The sheer frustration that they experience leaves them almost exhausted before they even start a day’s work.
Over the years, various schemes have been introduced in an effort to reduce the chaos. However, none has been successful in eradicating the problem. I hope that the Minister’s officials will urgently attend to the matter. Such action would receive considerable local support, particularly from the local authority, Newry and Mourne District Council, of which Mr Bradley and I are members. The council has sought, on numerous occasions, to resolve the issue at local level with Roads Service officials. We have no criticisms of those officials "on the ground", but more lateral thinking is required to produce an acceptable solution that will meet the needs of the people whose daily lives are disrupted by the traffic problems, particularly at peak times.
I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the suggestions and that he will initiate a study that will take a long-term view of the road network needs of the area. I hope that once the consultation process is completed, the Minister will act swiftly to carry out its proposals.
Many of the ad hoc improvements that have been made look unsightly. We have, to some extent, created barriers and roadblocks in an area of high-quality housing, and that has done nothing to improve its general layout. If improvements are to be carried out, we must consider that it is not enough to simply hammer spikes into the road. Local householders, who pay taxes and considerable rates, are entitled to take pride in their properties, and to have improvements carried out in a manner that they find acceptable.
I hope that the Minister will take these under consideration. As an indication of his commitment, perhaps he could arrange for officials to look at some of the more unsightly ones to see if action can be taken to improve them.
I am happy to agree with Mr Bradley.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also agree with Mr Bradley and Mr Kennedy.
The road around Rathfriland is gridlocked, and one must experience it early in the morning and in the afternoon to appreciate the mayhem. It affects not only local residents but also commuters from Belfast to Newry and Dublin and vice versa. I must leave very early in the morning to get through Newry.
Motorists in this area are frustrated and bad-tempered at the lack of road structure. The blame lies firmly with absentee Ministers who neglected infrastructure here for many years. Now that we have our own Minister, I hope that he will take on board some of the concerns that were voiced and will try to get a feasibility study started immediately. I recognise that money is a problem, but I ask him to make this a priority. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Newry, like many other towns in Northern Ireland that have experienced considerable growth and vitality, suffers from traffic difficulties at certain locations and at certain times of the day. We are all familiar with the traffic problems of the morning peak period — the so-called school run.
The area in question lies between the A1 Newry to Belfast road to the west and the A25 Newry to Rathfriland road to the east. Approximately 16,500 vehicles a day use the A1, while 12,000 use the A25. There is cross-movement of traffic between the A1 and A25 through the townland of Carneyhough via the Upper Damolly Road, which carries approximately 5,000 vehicles a day. In the past, traffic also used shortcuts through residential roads. The area is primarily residential and has two main schools at Ashgrove Avenue. Additional housing is also planned on land that was zoned in the 1984-99 area plan. The Newry area plan forms the framework for the orderly development of the area.
My Department has been working on several fronts to help to solve traffic problems in the area. To confine traffic to the main route, which is the Upper Damolly Road through the residential area, the Roads Service made the Control of Traffic (Newry) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000 to prohibit the use of three residential roads by through traffic. This scheme involved extensive consultation and a public inquiry, which was held in June 2000.
The Department has accepted the inspector’s main recommendations. Three residential roads will be permanently stopped up. The junction of Upper Damolly Road with the Rathfriland Road will be improved and signalised. The signals will be in place early next year, and will incorporate a pedestrian phase to cater for the growing number of schoolchildren in the area.
Another scheme that will have a positive impact on the area is the improvement of the road network at Trevor Hill, which forms the junction of the Belfast Road with the Rathfriland Road. The Department has commenced work to increase the road capacity of the two roundabouts in the area. That work should be completed by December this year.
Following a request from Newry and Mourne District Council, my Department intends to consider the provision of traffic-calming measures, and the extension of the 30 mph speed limit, on the Rathfriland Road. Although there has already been some residential development in accordance with the existing area plan, each planning application is considered on its merits in relation to the impact on the local road network. Alterations are requested if the development is considered to have a significant impact. Road improvements, for example on the Damolly Road, have been made a condition of planning approval. Work has commenced on the preparation of the Newry and Banbridge area plan. The Roads Service will play an important part in the area’s future development.
The Department will continue to assess all new development planned for the area and will ensure that it is carried out without having an adverse effect on the existing road network. We will continue our plans to carry out improvements at the Upper Damolly Road/Rathfriland Road junction, and at the junction of the Belfast and Rathfriland Roads. In line with current policy and criteria, we will consider traffic-calming measures and will continue to assess changing needs.
In response to issues raised by Members, I want to stress the importance of my concluding remarks. Mr Bradley and other Members asked me to consider the possibility of a feasibility study of the area. I have outlined some of the measures that are being worked on, or will conclude, in the near future. As a result of today’s debate, I will ask my officials to revisit the area to see if there is anything further we can do in addition to the measures that are currently being put in place and which should be operational within two to three months.
Adjourned at 5.38 pm.